Blog Stats

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

I’ve been meaning to write a brand new mailbag post prior to the holidays, but unfortunately life in all of its forms has been intervening over the past month. I promise that I’ll get a new post up quickly up after the new year. Until then, I’ll leave you with one of my favorite Christmas clips from my childhood featuring John Denver and The Muppets. Thank you to all of my readers for making this the best place for college sports discussion on the web (and you can keep the talk going on my last post). Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and enjoy the bowls!

Los Angeles readies its siren call (probably meaning the new Rams site would be adjacent to Dodger Stadium in Chavez Ravine), meaning it’s entirely possible that California’s NFL status in 2016 could be back to where it was in 1981. (And St. Louis could receive a consolation prize; doesn’t the Jaguars’ owner have ties to that town?) Divisionally, having LA in the NFC West with Arizona, San Francisco and Seattle, and St. Louis in the AFC South with Houston, Indianapolis and Tennessee, would make things more compact and sensible.

The Jaguars owner is I believe from East St. Louis, so he has deep ties to the area. But it has been reported the Jags have an airtight lease shackling them to J’ville until at least 2027.

Totally agree about the divisional benefits of a Rams move back to LA and a Jags move to STL. But I doubt Khan will want to move the Jags to a city that, if it loses the Rams, will have lost 2 football teams in less than 30 years (and one of those was named Cardinals!)

If the Jags do look to move in a decade, besides the obvious overseas candidate (London), I could potentially see a Portland/San Antonio/San Francisco (if the Raiders move to LA, too, since the 49ers are moving an hour south of SF) shift. Not too many cities plausible for the Jags east of the Mississippi, and it would make divisions a bit difficult, but such matters can be finessed.

I hail from a market that lost two baseball teams in 11 years, but the third time has been the charm (the Nationals are better financed and more intelligently run than either the original or expansion Senators). St. Louis is a smaller, less affluent market than D.C., but you can’t fault that town for 28 years of the Bidwills (who never got it right until less than a decade ago), and while the Rams won a Super Bowl (the one with perhaps the best finish of all) and played in another, unstable ownership has sank the franchise in recent years. Perhaps come 2030, if that area remains a corporate hub (Anheuser-Busch, Monsanto), the St. Louis Jaguars could succeed where the Cardinals and Rams either have failed or appear destined to fail.

A-B isn’t run from StL any more, and unlike the Buschs, the Brazilians who run InBev have a fetish for efficiency and cost-cutting.

St. Louisans have a long and deep attachment to the Cardinals, but I seriously doubt that few people would care if the Rams (or even the Blues) moved elsewhere.

St. Louis has long been known as a baseball town and was probably the soccer capital of the US back in mid last century (so the irony is that there is still no MLS franchise in StL). Even hoops would probably have a bigger following than football or hockey if there was an NBA franchise here.

DC is a Redskins town first and foremost. The Nats are liked, but by equal parts DC fans and other team fans living in town excited they get to see the Cubs/Mets/Cards come to town. DC is now certainly able to sustain a baseball team, but the Nats are never going to rival more established teams in the game as far as regional fan penetration/support (like Yankees/Red Sox/Mets/Dodgers/Cubs/Reds/Cardinals/Giants. (or even the Redskins).

Further, while the Bidwells have not exactly been model owners over the years (to say the least), its telling that the NFL when it expanded in 1993, it bypassed StL, which everyone presumed to be a favorite, partly because of the same stadium concerns that the Bidwells had (and to also grow in the southeast).

The main reason the Rams moved to StL was that Georgia Frontiere was from StL and wanted to move the team to her home city (and of course, a nice, new stadium with luxury boxes).

Not defending the NFL, but the same fingers must be pointed at CFB, high school, Pop Warner, etc, as well as the long term harm inflicted by steroids on football players who later had CTE. Its not as simple a picture as the documentary made it out to be.

The NFL’s chief failings stem more from the use of a lesser doctor to head the league’s research into concussions. But, today, even with more knowledge about concussions, its quite difficult to change the culture of an inherently violent sport. Players still lead with their heads, and still complain about the crackdown on hitting implemented by the league. Short of banning tackling and lineman play as we currently know it, there is only so much the NFL can do with education when 22 guys are awaiting the snap on 4th and Goal from the 1.

As for the players mentioned in the documentary, like Mike Webster, there was little discussion on the role of anabolic steroids and the long term effects from use, including violent, destructive behavior and changes to the brain.

I agree it is a problem at all levels of the game. I just especially hate how the NFL was Big Tobacco-Like in response. First with their hand in the sand, then attempting to discredit the initial reports, and still trying to control the process and influence with their $$$. The reforms they have made (moving the kickoff 5 yards) seem like window dressing when the NFL was also trying to extent the regular season by 2 games for every team just last year.

Read the book, you get a lot more information on the whole process and the more information you get, the worse the NFL comes off.

Not sure what the solution is. Not sure there is a solution. But, I can’t go back to ignorance of the problem and cheer for my guys to bash into their guys.

The NFL is certainly the biggest dog on the block, both now and back in the 1990’s. But since the average NFL career is about 3 seasons, the average NFL player will have spent more years playing in both high school and college. Blaming the NFL is simply not sufficient.

As for the reforms, I completely agree. The kickoff rule basically removed kick returns from the game. I read that Mike Westhoff, former Dolphins and Jets special team coach, recommended making kickoffs more like punts in terms of lining up before the snap, arguing it will retain excitement while making it “safer”.

But all the talk about making football “safer” is ridiculous while the means of stopping an offensive player is to ram your body at full speed at him. Tackle football is inherently violent in pretty much every aspect of the game. Absent a wholesale shift to touch/flag football with lineman yelling long state names while counting positive integers, there is very little that can be done without risking fan alienation.

Moreover, the NFLPA does deserve some blame. At any time during the last several CBA negotiations, they could have pushed for stricter testing and multiple opinions before going back out on the field–but only did so in 2010. Also, that they still have not agreed to testing for PED’s like HGH, which make players bigger, stronger, and faster indicates that the NFL is not the only hypocritical part of the equation (though it definitely is, what with pushing Thursday night games every week and a desire for 18 game seasons). Before that, individual players turned a blind eye to guys using steroids and hard drugs–some of the same guys now blaming the NFL for not warning them that repeated blows to the head might not be a good thing.

Back to your lack of enthusiasm for NFL games, I understand that. But watching bowl games and going to high school games is really not any different. Its the sport that should repulse you, not the league.

I haven’t actually watched any bowl games since finishing the book either. Not sure if I will catch any of them. I’m anti-NFL and apathetic at best towards college. Never cared about high school football to begin with.

I read the book and thought it was a great read. Once Tony Dorsett announced his diagnosis, my interest in watching nfl games took a hit. I was a huge dorsett fan as a kid, so that hearts.

I think the nfl has a huge problem on its hands, and has no clue on how to truly address it. We just had twin boys, and as of today, neither one will play football. That may change, but I feel pretty strongly about it. I have a good friend that played professional football from 89 -99, and we just found out how badly he’s doing. It’s not pretty….

I’ve been recommending this book to everyone I know. It’s a good read…

Before the bowls started I guessed the B10 would go 2-5, with 1-6 a real possibility. I may have been optimistic, but things are going as expected so far.

MN never met a bowl game it couldn’t lose, especially in TX. MI had no running game and a weak defense all season, and starting a freshman QB didn’t magically fix that.

LSU is a tough match-up for IA. I doubt NE, but UGA is choke-prone. The PSU loss bothers me, but WI could give SC a good game. MSU’s D should keep them in the game, but I think Stanford is a little better. OSU’s pass D has been a sieve, but they can score on Clemson and Clemson is prone to collapses.

Watching bits and pieces of this Rutgers-ND game – entertaining thus far. Sadly, ESPN is at it again & has setup a narrative where ND has hogpile of excuses related to injuries, off field issues if they lose. Never mind the fact that Rutgers has been arguably the most slandered, much deserved, program this season.

ESPN invariably focuses on the narrative involving teams research shows people care about. Rutgers could go into this game as a one-loss team overlooked by the BCS, and the focus would still be on ND. I expect the same men’s hoopswise when Kansas visits Ames in mid-January, even if the Cyclones are still undefeated..

Among the more than 100 top athletic powers (the football bowl subdivision), which enroll more than 3 million students, inflation-adjusted academic spending per student rose a modest 8 percent from 2005 to 2011. Meanwhile, “athletic spending per athlete” rose by more than 38 percent. (This is based on the 90 schools for which data were available.) At the same time, university subsidies — “institutional funding for athletics per athlete” — expanded on average by an extraordinary 51 percent, despite rising television and ticket revenue. Commercial receipts covered only 74 cents of each extra dollar of costs incurred in this athletics arms race.

…

…Rutgers University, where spending per athlete more than doubled from 2005 to 2011, and inflation-adjusted academic spending was flat. Or at my school, Ohio University, where inflation-adjusted academic spending per student fell about 6 percent, while inflation-adjusted spending per athlete rose 77 percent. At Rutgers, commercial revenue (ticket sales, television, concessions and so on) paid only 53 percent of total athletics costs, and much less — 15 percent — at Ohio University.

I agree to an extent. Obviously getting into a major conference was a goal worth investing in, but Rutgers could have done so far more efficiently. They sponsor 27 which is way, way more than they should be given their budgetary constraints (they are effectively trying to run Michigan’s athletic department on 1/2 the total revenue and 1/4 of the earned revenue) and they are not particularly good at most of them (they ranked 120th in the Director’s Cup (second worst of any AQ team in the country) last year right in between Miami (Ohio) and Northern Iowa).

If they trimmed the athletic department to a more manageable number (no more than 20 sports) they could reduce the cost to the university and improve their performance in the sports they continued to sponsor.

The 27 sports is probably the last vestige of Rutgers’ one-time status as an ersatz Ivy school. (Remember, until a few years ago, Rutgers fielded a “lightweight” or 150-pound football team, playing a few Ivies along with Army and Navy.)

Yes, but then the Times and their ilk would scream bloody murder about how Rutgers is trying to kill amateurism, blah, blah.

I say better to have the Times yelling out you and saving millions of a dollars a year than having the faculty and local media yelling at you for increasing athletic spending while cutting academic services.

But what to cut? It can’t be lacrosse (men and women) or the B1G would look like fools for starting up a lacrosse league right at the minimum number required. Sports in the B1G as of next year would be 10 for men and 14 for women. That leaves lightweight rowing (M & W) and rowing (M). I would think coming from the news of Temple cutting rowing that Rutgers would like to take advantage of that fact. Wrestling has typically been the easy target elsewhere but the B1G is very big on wrestling, so another potential PR nightmare.

One thing for sure, I wouldn’t want to be the AD that has to decide what to cut next.

Did rutgers decide to join the B12? or stay put? They’ve had supported these sports without B1G affiliation, BTN and the associated income. Cutting sports just as it is going to see substantial increases would be truly professionalizing certain college sports.

Maryland’s Men’s T&F managed to save itself even after the elimination of cross country so it can be done, but I agree it would probably make more sense to “pair” cross country and track and field and either eliminate both or keep both (in which soccer and baseball+softball would need to be eliminated).

Is it? A good team will try to be 3 deep X 18 (aprox) events X two genders. Scheduling, support, transportation, facilities, equipment, event and dicipline coaches, etc are costs even if the scholarship limits have been dramatically limited (hence sponsoring indoor track and XC as a method to approach the scholarship numbers to truly support competitive outdoor teams).

Basically your coach is the distance coach for track. There’s no equipment but shoes and uniforms. Travel is small compared to other sports as running is an individual sport, so you may compete against smaller schools. Its not like Notre Dame player Ohio Wesleyan.

Its probably the cheapest sport out there.

And as cc says, if you eliminate cross-country, you aren’t likely to get any good distance runners so you are severely hurting track.

We are making the same point. In the scenario you described track would be the more profitable sport since it would “only” lose $1 million instead of $1.8 million. But if baseball brought in say $1.2 in revenue it would only lose $800,000 making it the better investment.

I have no idea what the exact values for Rutgers’ cross country and baseball teams are, but I do know that baseball is capable of turning a profit at some schools (something that no cross country team does) and Rutgers’ baseball team no doubt is a money loser it might still be a better monetary investment than cross country.

In any case, though, as someone else said, there’s no rationale for RU to cut if they haven’t done so already,

Sure there is. They can reduce the cost to the school, students and taxpayers at a time of record high tuition rates and record low levels of state support and improve their on field results. I doubt they will cut anymore since no one wants to be the bad guy unless they have absolutely no other option, but that doesn’t mean eliminating sports would be a bad idea.

Anyways, I still stand by my original point; Rutgers could have gotten a much higher ROI from its athletic department if it had trimmed its AD to down to a more manageable size years ago.

You can get RU’s actual numbers from the DOE website. The DOE groups indoor and outdoor track with cross-country into one entry, but the rest as separated. According to RU, each of their sports pull revenue to exactly match their expenses.

Remember that a single athlete that plays two different sports is counted as 2 athletes for Title IX compliance purposes.

The easiest two sports to do this in are track and field and cross-country. In fact, you can essentially put the entire track team onto the cross-country roster in name only and then have a fraction of those people actually run any cross-country races. That gets you double credit for Title IX purposes for half the number of athletes. I’m not speaking as a hypothetical here – schools actually do this.

Whatever is being spent on the women’s track and cross-country teams is worth it for any university simply for Title IX compliance (as those expenses are peanuts compared to fines for being out of compliance).

Yea, I should have said net profit not profit margin (though I’ll note that in my second example baseball did have the better margin).

@Brian

That’s the problem with the DOE numbers; they don’t separate earned revenue from allocated revenue so you can’t really tell which programs are the most profitable (in this case meaning which lose the least).

I agree that 27 teams is way too many for RU given it’s financial problems. Puirdue has something like 18-19 teams, for example. I think IU might have 23..

But I don’t think they’ll cut unless absolutely forced to…….because the perception is that they’ll be rolling in cash. We all know any cash increases will be eaten up by adm. expenses, better facilities etc…….Without knowing more, I would guess they are #120 in the D.C. because of crappy facilities and low-profile coaches.They’ll break the bank in an attempt to compete, in all likelihood.

But if they DO want to save $, the fat’s probably in the $31M not allocated to any given program……

As for certain programs…I wouldn’t expect volleyball or wrestling to be cut. The Big 10 is very good in both sports. Every league team plays vollyball. All but 1 or 2 wrestle. They won’t ut baseball and softball is a growing sport, as is Lax. If Title 9 weren’t an issue, you could easily dump M and W Tennis, rowing, FH, M’s golf, and W’s gymnastics. The Big 10 sucks at akll these sports and they don’t draw crowds.

Problem is that men double up in those sports at a higher rate than women (who apparently want to concentrate on academics rather than athletics at a higher rate). So actual cost for the women’s double or triple “track” program is higher. Cheaper/easier to reduce/cut the men’s programs.

“Problem is that men double up in those sports at a higher rate than women (who apparently want to concentrate on academics rather than athletics at a higher rate). So actual cost for the women’s double or triple “track” program is higher. Cheaper/easier to reduce/cut the men’s programs.”

Been involved in the T9 implications/requirements/etc and ways to satisfy them since the late ’70s when D1 wrestling teams were being cut and T9 was an excuse/reason (see U Nike, who when taken to court admitted there wasn’t a T9 or monetary reason to drop their program. (The AD with no degree reportedly said had he known the resistance and headache to come he wouldn’t have done it.) I can’t cite the particular stats, but the higher rate of men doubling or tripling was a frequent point brought up. Often had the individuals, not the roster spots, been counted many schools would have been close to or actually in compliance.

The easiest two sports to do this in are track and field and cross-country. In fact, you can essentially put the entire track team onto the cross-country roster in name only and then have a fraction of those people actually run any cross-country races. That gets you double credit for Title IX purposes for half the number of athletes. I’m not speaking as a hypothetical here – schools actually do this.

Whatever is being spent on the women’s track and cross-country teams is worth it for any university simply for Title IX compliance (as those expenses are peanuts compared to fines for being out of compliance).

The thing is, Rutgers sponsors both Men’s and Women’s CC and T&F so it’s not of much use as a T9 offset.

I’m not saying Michigan has lost this bowl game yet (would be shocking if they won), but this program is in a funk. Much throughout my life, you could always respect Michigan’s lines, speed & athleticism. It appears they’ve had little of the above since Carr. RRod and now Hoke are killing this program & they have an AD who will put up with Hoke as the program further fades. Hoke got a huge break because he won a BCS game on a controversial call against an average VT team. It’s also bad for the BIG overall when Michigan is horse-shit. I’m sure OSU fans are licking their chops with glee, but then they need to ask themselves why they only have one vacated win against the SEC in bowl games. OSU, like Michigan, has a mediocre bowl record. The BIG has done OSU no favors in conference play as well because OSU shit themselves in BCSNCGs.

The BIG has rapidly become an average football conference filled with mostly bad coaches & there is very little upside due to close-minded, profit driven leadership. Yet too many hail Delany as a genius due to the money he helps the conference earn. Culture change is absolutely needed in the BIG, change that identifies the need for signature wins, esp in football and basketball – the latter being on the cusp of greatness. But football looks truly gloomy. It’s also about time states in the BIG region specialize prep football for safety and year round play, or the gap will grow larger.

“The BIG has rapidly become an average football conference filled with mostly bad coaches & there is very little upside due to close-minded, profit driven leadership. Yet too many hail Delany as a genius due to the money he helps the conference earn.”

It’s not as if football would become better if the B10 got less money.

Delany also doesn’t have the power to hire or fire the coaches or even the AD’s who hire or fire the coaches or the presidents who hire or fire the ADs.

He also doesn’t possess the magical fairy dust that will make more 5-star recruits magically pop out of the Midwestern soil. So what will you have Delany do? Get some magical fairy dust.

Magical fairy dust, why not? Delany can absolutely work on ideas with BIG football coaches to promote better SCHOLASTIC football players within the footprint. It certainly helps recruiting budgets to say local if the equivalent talent is there. Sure, it’s up to these high school leagues at the end of the day, but blessings from state schools and the league offices can only help. If Delany has done wonders to improve profits for BIG schools, then why not back it up with quality. If quantity is justified by quality, then quantity further increases & Delany can be even happier when he gets his performance reviews : ).

I just simple refuse to believe that talent has been optimized in the BIG footprint when many BIG states haven’t found a way to invest, whether it be private or public dollars, or both, in better prep football & by better I mean fundamental safety & skills learned at a young age that are cultivated on a constant, year-round basis, not just during late summer, fall, and early winter – year round football leagues are possible, winter or not. I’m also not saying that academic performance be sacrificed in the name of football. There are so many specialized prep academies who fulfill academic mission as well, schools out there that target specific sports. There are plenty of examples of such academies in the Midwest for sports outside football. Jesus, the rise of specialized, private hockey schools in Minnesota has been ongoing for more than a decade & damn if some of these schools don’t produce solid students – outstanding hockey prospects. A lot of the private Catholic schools in Minnesota have become unofficial farm leagues for college hockey, the NHL, and various junior and US-Canadian hockey leagues. Why not apply the same principles for football? Sure football requires a greater budget, but hockey isn’t a cheap sport to operate either, and the sport also has similar safety issues seen in football.

“Magical fairy dust, why not? Delany can absolutely work on ideas with BIG football coaches to promote better SCHOLASTIC football players within the footprint. It certainly helps recruiting budgets to say local if the equivalent talent is there. Sure, it’s up to these high school leagues at the end of the day, but blessings from state schools and the league offices can only help. If Delany has done wonders to improve profits for BIG schools, then why not back it up with quality. If quantity is justified by quality, then quantity further increases & Delany can be even happier when he gets his performance reviews”

I don’t see a cause and effect relationship here. This sounds like meaningless managementspeak. So you think that Delany “blessing” HS football will magically make HS football better?

“I just simple refuse to believe that talent has been optimized in the BIG footprint when many BIG states haven’t found a way to invest, whether it be private or public dollars, or both, in better prep football & by better I mean fundamental safety & skills learned at a young age that are cultivated on a constant, year-round basis, not just during late summer, fall, and early winter – year round football leagues are possible, winter or not.”

So are you saying that the B10 should start running prep schools and year-round pee wee football leagues or something like that?

“Delany can absolutely work on ideas with BIG football coaches to promote better SCHOLASTIC football players within the footprint.”

Nobody that matters in this is taking advice from Delany on how to groom HS players. The OHSAA has repeatedly voted against spring football (and despite Urban Meyer asking them to support it this last time). They are worried about it hurting other spring sports as well as being bad for the kids by driving them to specialize. They don’t give a rat’s ass what Delany thinks, nor should they. The B10’s success isn’t their problem.

Completely agree with Brian. Delany’s job is to ensure the financial health of conference athletic departments and promote Big 10 collegiate athletics. Delany has no power, and no potential power to influence the quality and quantity of athletes produced within the conference’s footprint.

The lack of football recruits in the B1G footprint is another aspect of the drive to expand, especially to NJ and MD. While neither state is Texas, Florida, or CA in terms of football recruits, it helps a little. Of course, this aspect is a nice benefit of expanding into two states where it would be most lucrative to be present in.

RRod and now Hoke are killing this program & they have an AD who will put up with Hoke as the program further fades.

Michigan’s AD won’t put up with this forever. Rodriguez wasn’t his hire, so it was easier for him to pull the ripcord. Hoke has a six-year contract. At some point in year four or five, he’ll either prove he deserves an extension or get fired.

It’s also bad for the BIG overall when Michigan is horse-shit. I’m sure OSU fans are licking their chops with glee, but then they need to ask themselves why they only have one vacated win against the SEC in bowl games. OSU, like Michigan, has a mediocre bowl record.

I agree with you: the Big Ten needs more than one dominant team. Whichever program you root for, you have to recognize that.

The BIG has rapidly become an average football conference filled with mostly bad coaches & there is very little upside due to close-minded, profit driven leadership. Yet too many hail Delany as a genius due to the money he helps the conference earn.

It’s exactly the opposite. What makes Delany a genius, is that he has made so much money despite the mediocrity of the product. He doesn’t coach the games, nor does he hire those who do. He has done everything a commissioner could. The rest is out of his hands.

Culture change is absolutely needed in the BIG, change that identifies the need for signature wins…

What exactly would you have them do? I’m imagining Jim Delany pounding his shoe on the table at a league meeting, and saying, “Dammit guys, win more games.” Yeah, that’ll do it.

I could go on here as to why your pro-Delany statements have overstated traction. Money rules for most, so why bother. At a certain point, quality matters more than quantity. There’s nothing wrong if Delany or any other commissioner promotes its members to field better, more competitive teams & better utilization, new ideas that improve local resources. In the BIG’s case, quantity is there, imagine if there was more quality to justify the quantity.

I could go on here as to why your pro-Delany statements have overstated traction.

I’m not pro-Delany: I frequently disagree with him. But I’ve got to tip my cap to the guy on at least one thing: he’s managed to be a superb marketer of a mediocre product.

At a certain point, quality matters more than quantity.

Logically, it would seem that ought to be true, at some point. I just don’t know where that point is. The Big Ten hasn’t been the dominant football conference for a long, long time, but that hasn’t stood in Delany’s way. I don’t know when/if it will.

There’s nothing wrong if Delany or any other commissioner promotes its members to field better, more competitive teams & better utilization, new ideas that improve local resources.

Who said there was anything wrong with that? What you haven’t done is to show that there’s much Delany could do about it.

Ohio State has not won the B1G football championship nor gone to the Rose Bowl for five years. It has been all Michigan State and Wisconsin over that period. So, in what sense does the B1G have only one dominant team. tOSU not only can’t win bowl games, it can’t win its own conference. 24 and 0 is a red herring.

Ohio State has not won the B1G football championship nor gone to the Rose Bowl for five years. It has been all Michigan State and Wisconsin over that period. So, in what sense does the B1G have only one dominant team. tOSU not only can’t win bowl games, it can’t win its own conference. 24 and 0 is a red herring.

I’m a Michigan fan, and even I recognize that that’s ridiculous. OSU has either been the best, or by the narrowest of margins the second-best, team in the league for nine of the past ten seasons. No other Big Ten team can even sniff at such dominance.

Obviously, the NCAA sanctions took a bite out of them. In 2012, they were the best team but ineligible to play for the championship game. In 2010, they were co-champions, but the games were vacated. They are still the dominant program, and no one is a close second.

MSU and Wisconsin have been good bridesmaids, but they are nowhere near as dominant as Ohio State over a comparable time period. Obviously, MSU was the better team this year. Only OSU has managed to put up comparable numbers almost every year.

It’s also about time states in the BIG region specialize prep football for safety and year round play, or the gap will grow larger.

In other words, the Big Ten should compromise many of its values to emulate the backward South and make football uber alles. Attendance and ratings are still strong for conference games, and Big Ten football culture is in no danger of diminishing to ACC levels; its heritage is too potent.

Attendance & ratings will diminish if the losing continues. Moreover, slight Md’s soon to be former conference all you want, but they, the ACC, current, partial and future members are 5-2 this bowl season, including new full members Pitt and Syracuse. The ACC also had a very nice 2012-2013 bowl season. Say what you want, but the ACC has more upside than the BIG in terms of football – a better footprint to work from. Question is: can they break the SEC grip? I think they can 1 out of 5 years, and they certainly have an opportunist this year.

Secondly, I’m not going to make negative blanket statements against the South, but their prep football culture is pretty special. It’s not exactly against the grain to build specialized prep academies via private funding in order to build and maintain specific sports – tradition and excellence being part of the mission as well. Minnesota has plenty of private schools that specialize in hockey. These schools feed colleges, Canadian juniors, minor leagues (US and Canada) and also the NHL. Look up Shattuck-Saint Mary’s & also know that this isn’t the only school in Minnesota with such a mission. There are plenty of private type academies for basketball throughout the BIG footprint as well. Such schools attract student athletes from all over the country and sometimes other countries. Nowhere in my post due I imply that BIG universities sacrifice academic integrity for the sake of football, nowhere. But there is nothing wrong with BIG football programs promoting stronger local-state leagues & year round football is quite doable, especially if spring ball has less contact and a lighter schedule. If expenses are part of the equation, then look no further than Minnesota prep hockey programs that run year round – hockey also being an expensive sport that also shares similar safety issues seen in football.

One thing about American culture, if the desire and will is there for something, then people will generally mobilize the necessary funds to make it happen. But, I think football has lost much of its former glory in the Midwest and Northeast – thus herein lie my culture change arguments, which I admittedly don’t explain in detail. I don’t really need to.

I think Corrigan’s comment is telling-“We had to fight and claw to get into the BCS. Noone wanted us or the Big East.”

The ACC did look like it might become the best fb conference 10 years ago. But the time before that was an aberration. In the 80s, the ACC was viewed on a par with the WAC in football. A number of the schools have returned to that level.

OSU faced AL, LSU and AR in New Orleans, and UF, SC x2, UGA, TN, AU and AL in FL. Since 5 of the games were one possession games, homefield advantage is relevant.

“OSU, like Michigan, has a mediocre bowl record.”

20-23. In games that are supposed to be a toss up, that seems reasonable. And that’s playing USC in the Rose Bowl and the SEC in FL over and over again. In addition, B10 rules prevented teams from playing bowls in many years since it was the Rose or nothing.

“The BIG has rapidly become an average football conference”

Average among the power 5? Sure. So what? It’s been a jumble of the B12, P12 and B10 behind the SEC for several years.

“filled with mostly bad coaches”

None of Andersen, Dantonio, Meyer, O’Brien, Kill, Fitzgerald and Ferentz are bad coaches, and that’s 7 of the 12 to show you’re factually wrong. Hoke did well before MI, so he isn’t bad. Wilson is trying to fix a perennially bad program, so he’s hard to judge. Hazell is new. Beckman isn’t looking good.

They aren’t all elite coaches, but there’s a huge gap between elite and bad.

“Culture change is absolutely needed in the BIG,”

Getting rid of “fans” like you would be a nice start. You’re more negative than ESPN is about the B10. The next time you say anything positive would be the first time. That’s not helpful in any way.

“It’s also about time states in the BIG region specialize prep football for safety and year round play, or the gap will grow larger.”

I’ve looked before, and before all this realignment stuff, traditionally, the B10, Pac, ACC, and B12 would get 1/7th of the top recruits each, the SEC would get 2/7th, and the rest (mostly ND) would get the remaining 1/7th. 1/7th is roughly 14-15 of the top 100. Of course, that is much easier if the B10 footprint held more than 15 of the top 100 (as you’d expect ND and other local schools to take some). With NJ and MD added to the footprint, the B10 footprint should include more than 1/7th of the top 100.
I also look at the Pac as they’re the only other conference with its own unshared footprint.

So how does 2013 compare to 2003 (10 years ago) and how does 2014 look so far?
Using Rivals data, and counting schools in the conference that they will be in in 2014:

#1 Have teams travel closer
#2 Eliminate some bowls (8 wins for Big 5, 9 for non Big 5 to qualify)
#3 Quit sticking the schools with the worst seats behind NCAA sanctioned scalpers
#4 No school allotments in upper decks of bowls or basketball arenas in school allotments
#5 Schools get tickets first to reward donors (and in sufficient numbers to cover all donors)
#6 Eliminate at least 4 NCAA teams and the first round sacrificial lambs
#7 In basketball go to a round robin double elimination (so fans can see 2 games)
#8 Price tickets closer to actual demand so venues are full, not empty
#9 Play games friday – sunday. No thursday or monday basketball or bowl games

Feel free to add to things to make the games / venues better for the fans.

#6. That’s easy for you to say as a fan of an NCAA basketball team that isn’t a “sacrificial lamb.” Under your definition, Florida Gulf Coast wouldn’t have been invited last March. College hoops is more than Indiana, UNC and UCLA.

My issue with Cinderella is they have still not gotten to the championship game. Conversely, lots of 13-16 seeds have gotten blown out in boring games nobody watches – or attends live – so all they really do is make a boring game or knocks out a real team while having no real shot in the end.

In 1985 (28 years x 4 teams per seed = 112 chances to win) the format went to 64:

In fact name any team seeded #9 through #16 who has won a Final Four game. Only 1 #8 seed has done it when Villanova won it all in 1985. While many thought it was a major upset, the Wildcats had played the Hoyas twice that season. The first was a 2 point loss at home and the second was a 7 point loss on the road. Of the 9 regular season losses only 2 were to non Big East schools. The first was a loss to Georgia and the second was a loss @ Maryland. Nova beat the Terps the second time they played in the NCAA tournament.

0-1 Georgia, lost only meeting (neutral)
1-1 Maryland, lost first (away) and won second (NCAA Tourney)
1-1 Syracuse, lost (away) and won (home)
1-1 Boston College, lost (away) and won (home)
1-2 Georgetown, lost 2 times (home and away) and won third (NCAA Tourney)
2-1 Saint John’s, lost (away) and won (home and Big East Tourney)
0-3 Saint John’s, lost 3 times (home, away, and Big East Tourney)

.
…
.

Imagine if you cut the field in half and played a double elimination style?

#1 You get to watch your team twice in a weekend, even if they lose 1 game
#2 Getting 1 loss is not catastrophic
#3 You actually get games where most every one is a “must see” game
#4 Fill venues better because fans have 2 games to attend, and better games
#5 Folks start watching the regular season and regular season games matter more

I am also in favor of limiting the post season conference tournaments to maybe just 4 or 8 teams. Why should the bottom feeders be rewarded with any post season play. If you want to have 64 teams then do a 32 team NCAA double elimination and do a 32 team NIT elimination and you have captured the best 20% or so of the NCAA.

And how do you pick these 32 teams? 16 champs and 16 at-larges? Which conferences deserve an autobid automatically every year?

What would this do to the regular season? If half the conferences know they have no shot at the tourney, do they sell any tickets? What about the middle teams that know they aren’t top 32 material? Do their fans give up?

Would casual fans lose interest? You lose the ability to easily do brackets. Would TV pay the same?

It is not like they have not already had just 32 teams in the past. If you have a 32 team NCAA tourney and a 32 team NIT that covers a whole lot of teams. If it was up to me just do away with the conference autobids and use the conference tournaments as the first round to get to the 32 teams. Even if you have autobids, you do not need them for every conference avery year. If autobids were limited to say the best 8 conferences in a given year then only 25% of the field is autobids.

What would this do to the regular season? If half the conferences know they have no shot at the tourney, do they sell any tickets? What about the middle teams that know they aren’t top 32 material? Do their fans give up?

I am guessing it would bring much more importance to the regular season. Many do not even start watching basketball till the NCAA tournament as the regular season and conference tournaments have been marginalized. The real beauty of college football is you can only lose maybe 1 game out of 12 if you want a shot at the brass ring. In college basketball you can lose 1/3 to 1/2 of your regular season games and still have a shot at the National Championship. What is the reward of doing well if it does not separate the “A” students from the C’s, D’s, and F’s?

Would casual fans lose interest?

If you only have the casual fans for a week or two, is that worth the trade off of have more interested fans over 4 – 5 months of the regular season and post season conference championships.

If half the conferences know they have no shot at the tourney, do they sell any tickets?

I would say if you eliminate most of the autobids and do it based on SoS and winning percentages you would probably have more interest. Again, you have 32 NCAA and 32 NIT which represents the “A” and “B” students in college basketball. I have been watching college basketball live and on TV for quite some time and the crowds and interest are always better when you have better teams playing each other. Fans know when 2 good teams are playing and tune in, on the other side they know the sacrificial lamb games and tune out.

With 32 teams playing a round robin double elimination style you insure that almost every game will have 2 teams closely matched so you have games that are more watchable across the board. The problem with now is they have so many games running at the same time so they can cherrypick 1 or 2 games out of the whole lot that might be worth watching but that means the majority are not worth watching.

Again, if you play 2 games that means fans of a school (live and TV) can watch their team through the entire weekend. Having games during the week where folks can not get off only to have your team out in the first game means many more fans will not travel. If I know I get to see a friday night game followed by a sunday afternoon game then footing the inflated 4 day NCAA hotel bill makes me more willing to take the risk.

Would TV pay the same?

If you have better content, TV should pay more because you will have more inventory that is actually watchable. look at the Super Bowl. More people probably watch 1 game than all the other playoff games combined. Lets say the Final Four gets 60% of the viewers, the Sweet Sixteen gets 30%, and the first rounds gets 10%. What is the marginal value of these games? If that first weekend was all top 32 teams playing each other the quality of the first weekend should greatly improved. If conference tournaments can play 4 straight days of survive and advance why do we have a day off once they get to the NCAA?

Increase the overall quality and you can demand a bigger premium.

.
…
.

If Cinderella really existed then at least 1 team from the #9 through #16 seeds should have been in the the Championship Game, yet this HAS NEVER HAPPENED. If 30 years has taught us anything, it is that Cinderella is a myth when it comes to the NCAA tournament. Let Darwin replace Cinderella and have a real “survival of the fittest” tournament replace it. My guess is the ratings for both the regular season AND the post season would go up. If I am an advertiser and my ad is in the #1 vs #16 game am I really happy? If that ad was running in the #1 vs #8 my guess is the eyeballs would be much higher.

If Cinderella was a good thing, show me 1 team from the bottom 8 seeds that has made the big game? Just show me one…

1975-1978. That’s it. And the world has changed tremendously in the past 35 years.

The tournament is the primary source of funding for many schools’ entire AD. How will they survive in your scenario?

“If you have a 32 team NCAA tourney and a 32 team NIT that covers a whole lot of teams.”

Nobody cares about the NIT. That ship has sailed.

“If it was up to me just do away with the conference autobids and use the conference tournaments as the first round to get to the 32 teams.”

And why on earth would all the smaller conferences vote to get kicked out of the tournament?

“Even if you have autobids, you do not need them for every conference avery year. If autobids were limited to say the best 8 conferences in a given year then only 25% of the field is autobids.”

See above. Why would any non-power school support that?

“I am guessing it would bring much more importance to the regular season.”

For power schools, sure. I think many small schools would lose all importance since they know they have zero chance to advance.

“If you only have the casual fans for a week or two, is that worth the trade off of have more interested fans over 4 – 5 months of the regular season and post season conference championships.”

Yes, since the tournament is worth more than all the regular season TV deals combined.

“With 32 teams playing a round robin double elimination style you insure that almost every game will have 2 teams closely matched so you have games that are more watchable across the board. The problem with now is they have so many games running at the same time so they can cherrypick 1 or 2 games out of the whole lot that might be worth watching but that means the majority are not worth watching.”

And yet millions of people do watch, and enjoy having choices. Besides, why watch the opening games if a loss doesn’t matter?

“If Cinderella really existed then at least 1 team from the #9 through #16 seeds should have been in the the Championship Game, yet this HAS NEVER HAPPENED. If 30 years has taught us anything, it is that Cinderella is a myth when it comes to the NCAA tournament.”

You couldn’t be more wrong. Cinderella is always present and draws millions of fans to watch in case this is the game when #15 beats #2 or #14 nips #3. Nobody really wants Cinderella in the later rounds. They want to see upsets the first week and then big names playing out for the title. TV ratings back this up.

“If Cinderella was a good thing, show me 1 team from the bottom 8 seeds that has made the big game? Just show me one…”

That’s a complete non sequitur. No underdog has to make the title game in order for Cinderella to be a good thing. Americans like to root for underdogs, but they prefer to watch big names in the title games. The tourney gives them both.

And why on earth would all the smaller conferences vote to get kicked out of the tournament?

“Even if you have autobids, you do not need them for every conference avery year. If autobids were limited to say the best 8 conferences in a given year then only 25% of the field is autobids.”

See above. Why would any non-power school support that?

If you eliminate almost every autobid then it really becomes advantageous to win and schedule well in the regular season. For some reason you seem to assume the smaller schools will get left out when the opposite may happen. PAC has sucked wind the past few years and the SEC has supplied maybe 2 decent teams per year lately. On the flip side some sacrificial lamb that won some minor conference and gets blown out by 20 – 30 in the opening game needs to go too. Culling both those herds will actually free up more slots for mid majors to shine when they are having good seasons.

.
…
.

“I am guessing it would bring much more importance to the regular season.”

For power schools, sure. I think many small schools would lose all importance since they know they have zero chance to advance.

You are making assumptions here. I would counter that smaller schools can actually shine with fewer teams from big conferences that played near .500 ball for the season and got hot to win their conference tourney to take a slot where they lose early.

.
…
.

“If you only have the casual fans for a week or two, is that worth the trade off of have more interested fans over 4 – 5 months of the regular season and post season conference championships.”

Yes, since the tournament is worth more than all the regular season TV deals combined.

Times have changed and the conferences have their own networks now that need to generate interest in the non football season. If those value are to grow then they will have to build viewers in the basketball season before the tournaments. If regular seasons and SoS wind up mattering you will have better pre conference schedules and fewer “sisters of the poor” type games for easy wins. If you are forced to schedule better early people will actually want to watch the product which increases demand.

It works the way it does now because the networks are lazy and they do not want competition for their pro broadcasts but now that conferences have networks they will have to do what is best for the college game even if it cuts into promotion of professional games. This is not rocket science. More demand for regular season games means more money flowing to the university coffers, and less heading to the NCAA or Pro coffers.

.
…
.

“With 32 teams playing a round robin double elimination style you insure that almost every game will have 2 teams closely matched so you have games that are more watchable across the board. The problem with now is they have so many games running at the same time so they can cherrypick 1 or 2 games out of the whole lot that might be worth watching but that means the majority are not worth watching.”

And yet millions of people do watch, and enjoy having choices. Besides, why watch the opening games if a loss doesn’t matter?

Think about it, would you rather see Duke play some #16 seed followed by a mid major 2 days later or see them play a #8 seed in the first game followed by a #5 seed in the second game? Baseball has been using double elimination for quite some time and folks still tune in to watch. The issue is not the single loss, but lose 2 and you are done. In a sense you get a safety game but as a trade off you have nothing but good teams to begin with so the overall quality is greatly improved

.
…
.

“If Cinderella really existed then at least 1 team from the #9 through #16 seeds should have been in the the Championship Game, yet this HAS NEVER HAPPENED. If 30 years has taught us anything, it is that Cinderella is a myth when it comes to the NCAA tournament.”

You couldn’t be more wrong. Cinderella is always present and draws millions of fans to watch in case this is the game when #15 beats #2 or #14 nips #3. Nobody really wants Cinderella in the later rounds. They want to see upsets the first week and then big names playing out for the title. TV ratings back this up.

See, you freely admit Cinderella is a myth. In the real Cinderella she did not just get a date with the Prince, but wound up married to him in the end. In essence she made it to the Championship Game. This never happens in college basketball yet we keep perpetuating the myth. If we were really being accurate the stop calling the teams Cinderella and call them One Night Stands as that is what they really are. My guess if you started calling them Hookers (playing for the money) or Fat Chicks (playing for attention, even if it is negative) then the dynamics of rose colored glasses would be quickly replaced.

.
…
.

“If Cinderella was a good thing, show me 1 team from the bottom 8 seeds that has made the big game? Just show me one…”

That’s a complete non sequitur. No underdog has to make the title game in order for Cinderella to be a good thing. Americans like to root for underdogs, but they prefer to watch big names in the title games. The tourney gives them both.

See this is where your point is exposed for the flawed thinking we pass off as genuine. If we called the first round games the Retard games instead of the Cinderella games we would be much closer to the reality. The set up now is a sham so they can milk the NFL into february then milk march with the NCAA tourney before milking the opening of pro baseball in April. Sure the networks win but is it really the best route for college sports? I would tend to say no, but until folks think outside of the box we will continue to be spoon fed what the networks want to make money on. I for on would like to vote with my eyeballs and wallet to break the current cycle and opt out of the pro games all together and just watch college all the time.

With the advent of college conference networks and a la carte viewing, I may be much farther in the future than you are thinking about an outdated model.

It’s instructive to note that even through all of the talk about Division 4, the power conferences have been consistent that they don’t want to mess with the NCAA Tournament. Threatening the existence of the NCAA Tournament is the biggest stick that the power conferences can wield and yet we haven’t seen that used at all. Part of it is that it would be PR suicide that would make any complaints about the BCS system look like small potatoes. Within our commenting community here, we might discuss this as somehow being a viable option, but any thought of cutting off small conference access to the NCAA Tournament would get completely murdered in the general public way beyond anything that we’ve talked about for football.

Here’s the major difference between basketball and football: it doesn’t cost the power conferences much to allow the smaller conferences access in basketball (either financially or physically – 1 extra game against a cupcake in March for Duke isn’t a big deal for basketball, but the #1 football team shouldn’t be putting their bodies at risk to play a Sun Belt team in January in the name of equal access), so what’s the point of taking that access away when the marginal gains would be relatively small compared to the negative public blowback? In contrast, all of the negative public blowback in the world wouldn’t move the power conferences off of their positions on football because access is so much more important in that sport.

I sympathize with trying to make the regular season worth more, but there are too many other factors, such as early entrants to the NBA draft that won’t allow for colleges to develop multi-year stars in the way that they had up through the 1980s, that will cap the value of the regular season no matter what is done with the NCAA Tournament. Once again, I don’t see the gains from the regular season offsetting whatever would be lost from reducing access to the NCAA Tourney.

Plus, for better or for worse, entities that are perceived to be (or want to be perceived to be) successful will always push back on getting smaller. It’s always about expansion: expanding leagues, expanding the regular season, expanding the postseason, etc. Many of us hardcore fans say that we’d rather have fewer and more meaningful games across all sports, yet I haven’t seen an instance where any of the 4 major pro sports leagues or the power conferences willingly contracted anything about themselves. It has always been about getting bigger (and to be sure, TV networks up to this point have continued to fund getting bigger). That applies to the large number of bowls in general as well as the NCAA Tournament – if TV is paying for it, then there’s little incentive to reduce any quantity.

Completely agree, and part of my opposition to CFB playoffs is that expansion always begets more expansion, never contraction. Once we go to 4 teams, 8 is probably inevitable, and one day, 16 (and maybe even 32, like FCS).

And the concerns regarding basketball are equally applicable to CFB, such that regular season games in MBB have no inherent meaning other than as a broader seeding and ranking exercise for the NCAA tourney. Even conference championship tourneys devalue the regular season. Without either, Duke vs. UNC would have a meaning magnified by factors of 100. Same for Indiana/Mich St, or Kentucky/Florida.

The NCAA tourney costs them a ton of money. There is much more to be gained in $ terms from cutting off the smaller schools in basketball. They really already control the revenue in football. They are fighting any change to that. 85% of the NCAA’s money comes from the basketball tourney. You are right about the publicity. If they pulled out of the NCAA even the Division III schools would be adversely impacted.

If the five major conferences and their smaller football counterparts (AAC, C-USA, MWC, Sun Belt, MAC) broke off to form their own basketball tournament, wouldn’t that eventually weaken the NCAA tourney with those conferences left behind, to the big boys’ benefit? If I’m Delany or Swofford, I want to diminish the Big East and Atlantic 10’s basketball product and recruiting prowess as best I can.

That leaves 20ish conferences that would get 0 bids, and none of them were close to the top 32 (#11 seed at best).

“You are making assumptions here.”

You led off by saying that you were guessing, and you’re criticizing me for making assumptions?

“Times have changed and the conferences have their own networks now that need to generate interest in the non football season.”

The tourney is still worth more than all the other hoops TV deals combined. Those networks carry multiple winter sports, too.

“If you are forced to schedule better early people will actually want to watch the product which increases demand.”

You think. I think most people don’t care until the tournament starts because that’s how hoops has marketed itself. They chose to make the regular season meaningless and you can’t put that genie back in the bottle. Only dedicated fans are going to watch regular season games consistently.

“Think about it, would you rather see Duke play some #16 seed followed by a mid major 2 days later or see them play a #8 seed in the first game followed by a #5 seed in the second game?”

I’ll take the former (with the chance for an upset), thank you very much. The latter sounds like the regular season.

“Baseball has been using double elimination for quite some time and folks still tune in to watch.”

Baseball fans do, not casual fans.

“See, you freely admit Cinderella is a myth.”

No, I don’t. I say you define it incorrectly. Everyone else means something different when talking about Cinderella in March.

“In the real Cinderella she did not just get a date with the Prince, but wound up married to him in the end. In essence she made it to the Championship Game. This never happens in college basketball yet we keep perpetuating the myth.”

No, we don’t. Nobody goes around thinking a #16 seed can win the title. You’re just making this stuff up.

“If we called the first round games the Retard games instead of the Cinderella games we would be much closer to the reality.”

There is no place in civilized society for that word. End of discussion.

The argument is the little guys will be shut out, but it looks like they are still in?

.
…
.

Wainscott says:

Completely agree, and part of my opposition to CFB playoffs is that expansion always begets more expansion, never contraction. Once we go to 4 teams, 8 is probably inevitable, and one day, 16 (and maybe even 32, like FCS).

And this is my basic point. When they add teams they do not add the best teams. They add teams to add marginal revenue. Again, I am not advocating not letting the little schools in but more curbing the bottom feeders from the power conferences and getting the best of the smaller schools, not the not so good ones.

I still feel you need no more than 4 teams for a football playoff and 16 for basketball. 8 teams in football dilutes the pool and certainly 64 – 68 basketball teams does the same. If the pro basketball does best of 3 then doing double elimination in college seems better equipped to reward the best of the best and not just some mid or low seed team that pulls a single upset.

I have long thought the NCAA should go to a 96 team field with a 64 team play-in round. They were considering a 96 as an option when they went to 68.

I think people have it wrong when they assume the Non-BCS conferences don’t compete well enough to get in. To me the issue is that the non-BCS conferences use their tourney bids to prop up their conference tournaments. I think that is bad logic. Far better to send your conference regular season champ to play a middle of the pack 5th seed from a BCS conference than to send a scrub school that gets hot to play #1 duke or #1 Kansas in the first round.

They are, IMO, minimizing their automatic bid.

That creates an impression that they do not belong, which I think is crap. I am reminded of the year Stephen Curry’s Davidson team played Patty Mills’s St. Mary’s team in the NIT. There is no way either team was less than the 30th or 40th best team in the country and either would have had good runs in the tourney, but both were on the outside looking in as they are from smalll conferences and were upset in their tournies, cheating viewers of some really good basketball.

My thought is they should give all 32 conference champs byes and then have 64 at large teams play on the weekend where conference tourney’s normally end — highest seed is at home. winners advance, losers are eligible for the other tourneys.

come Sunday at midnight, the games are done, the surviving 32 and the 32 champs are seeded and you have the 64 teams for the nice tidy bracket everyone loves.

You know with 300+ teams in DI, every year you have 95-115 or so 20 win teams. I think that is an important plateau. I think they are losing money not to expand the tourney to 96 teams and increase viewership.

Why shouldn’t the majority of tickets be sold locally and/or through the most efficient method? The schools combine for much less than half of the total ticket distribution. The bowls can get big money from local companies.

“#4 No school allotments in upper decks of bowls or basketball arenas in school allotments”

Why should the locals get stuck with all the bad seats?

“#5 Schools get tickets first to reward donors (and in sufficient numbers to cover all donors)”

Why do they deserve priority?

“#6 Eliminate at least 4 NCAA teams and the first round sacrificial lambs”

Lose the Cinderella effect?

“#7 In basketball go to a round robin double elimination (so fans can see 2 games)”

People like the tournament already.

“#8 Price tickets closer to actual demand so venues are full, not empty”

Very hard to do when you have to guess ahead of time what the demand will be.

“#9 Play games friday – sunday. No thursday or monday basketball or bowl games”

They can’t play Sunday bowls – the NFL prevents that. The whole point of playing in late December through 1/1 is that many people have time off, making the day less relevant. Evidence shows that playing the championship on Monday is a smart business decision. Friday is a terrible TV night, and TV pays for everything. Thursday games are one of the great things about the tournament.

“Feel free to add to things to make the games / venues better for the fans.”

You have to face facts – the TV audience is more important than the live crowd anymore. Those two groups often want very different things. The common man is irrelevant now. Only recruits, major donors and TV money really matter.

Maryland gets paid well for the embarrassment they put up with. Not surprisingly, Texas Tech is also Under Armour. They are wearing weird stuff and completely changing their look. Hawaii also fits the mold, although their stuff isn’t as ugly as Maryland and Tech.

I would like Mark to stay at MSU but have been saying on here for the past few years that sooner or later a bigger program will come knocking. texas certainly has the resources to at least make a formidable offer.

it’s interesting to follow this. Chris Spielman said on the radio this morning that Briles and Mora pulling out suggests that Texas has decided on their candidate already.

Who is it? Only Franklin and Strong have interviewed. The fisher contact gives raises to Fisher’s assistants, so I am inclined to think he is out, but a lot of super-rich UT boosters like the idea of landing fisher (one super rich booster likes gruden) per chip brown.

To me, it seems like Patterson is interviewing the people he wants to interview (although the briles thing looks like a screw up) and if and/or when the powers at UT fail to land their candidate(s) he would be able to step in and hire with confidence.

I think Malzahn would be a fantastic hire in that it would dramatically improve the conference having to face baylor and malzahn’s offenses each year. the conference wouldn’t play any school tougher than those to prepare for in bowl games. I am surprised he isn’t talked about.

brown thinks fisher signed the extension so that UT would know that any talks with him were in good faith— that fisher would not be leveraging Texas’s interest into a bigger deal at FSU. Says there is a perception that jim harbaugh did that.

However… I went to grad school at Michigan and developed a respect for the B1G.

And in my opinion, the B1G did very badly with expansion and made their conference worse overall.

I think the absolute best case scenario, the one they should have gone for from the start and probably could have gotten, was this:

West:

Missouri
Kansas
Nebraska
Iowa

North

Michigan State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois

Central

Michigan
Notre Dame
Purdue
Northwestern

East:

Ohio State
Penn State
Indiana
Maryland

I think pursuing Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, etc if in fact they did pursue those schools was foolish. They are not good fits geographically or culturally. It wasn’t going to work. Could they have gotten Notre Dame? Maybe, maybe not.

Missouri and Kansas they could have had on day one, and they would have added a lot athletically.

The B1G could have been a tremendous league in football and especially basketball.

Now they’re being watered down by Rutgers, and, to a lesser extent, Maryland. I at least respect Maryland because they’ve been decent at basketball and they’re great academically, and they’ve at least had some success in football. Rutgers actually makes the B1G worse.

Missouri is just fine in the SEC. It’s a good conference and Missouri is doing well there. Nobody’s crying for Missouri right now.

I’m on the fence about the Rutgers/Maryland move, but I don’t see how Andy’s 16 could ever have come about.

At the time the B1G added Nebraska, they were looking for one team. No neutral party has ever suggested that Missouri should have been that one team.

They could have gotten a “three-fer” at the time, with Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri. No neutral party has ever suggested that they should have grown by three schools all at once, much less those three.

Shortly after Nebraska was selected for #12, Missouri joined the SEC, and was no longer available. Kansas signed a Big XII GOR, and was no longer available. Notre Dame has never been available.

So I don’t see what conceivable set of moves the Big Ten could have made, that would lead to the 16-team league Andy is suggesting. Of course, it’s fun as a pure fantasy, but to suggest the Big Ten missed out is not supported by any facts.

Really, the only question is whether they should have expanded to 14 at all, or just stayed at 12 for the indefinite future.

Oh Marc. You’re so sure you know how it all went down even though you have basically nothing to go on.

Here’s what I’ve heard, and no I can’t confirm it, but I think the sources are solid:

The B1G was definitely thinking in terms of 14 and the Pac 12 was definitely thinking in terms fo 16. But then because of what went on with Texas, Baylor and Texas A&M, the Pac 12 stopped at 12, so the B1G nixed their plans at larger expansion. Missouri was very high on the B1G’s list for school #13, but then they decided against expanding that far, and then Mizzou started working with A&M to join the SEC. Yes, after that it was too late.

What I think the B1G should have done: ignored what was going on with the Pac 12 and just do their own thing. Grab up Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas and go to 14. It would have been a huge athletic boost and all were AAU at the time. Basketball and football both get a big bump.

Go to an East/West setup of

West:

Missouri
Nebraska
Kansas
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois

East:

Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Northwestern
Indiana
Purdue

Then start fishing around the East and see who you can get for those last two spots: Notre Dame, Maryland, Virginia, whichever are the two best you can get.

Instead the B1G apparently chased white whales like Texas, North Carolina, and Duke and ended up with Rutgers.

This idea that the B10 based whether to expand to 14 or not on what the Pac did is implausible.

BTW, if you noticed, later on, the B10 expanded to 14 even though the Pac did nothing, so your theory that the B10 cared about whether the Pac expanded or not makes no sense.

What did change later on is that ND came off the table & they and ‘Cuse & Pitt joined the ACC, threatening the B10’s eastern flank. _That_ (and the Pac deal falling apart) was what triggered the B10’s desire to move from 12 to 14. Now, you could argue that if ND had came off the table before UNL joined, the B10 would have added Mizzou and KU as well (though adding some Plains schools still doesn’t address the B10’s eastern flank issues, and frankly, the east is more populated, so the the B10 cares more about there), but since ND didn’t make a move until they decided to, your scenario in which the B10 also took Mizzou and KU when they took UNL simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

Richard, listen to what you are saying: you’re saying the B1G expanded in reaction to the ACC expanding and threatening their eastern flank. So why then is it implausible that the B1G might also expand in reaction to the Pac 12 expanding on their western flank?

Because
1. TX, OK, and CO are nowhere near the B10’s original western flank. On the other hand, by taking Pitt and ‘Cuse, the ACC had PSU surrounded by ACC schools to the north, west, and south. By semi-adding ND (along with the other new additions and original ACC schools, they threatened PSU & B10 to the east (in NYC) as well.
2. The East is more populous and more important. NYC and DC are far more worth fighting for than StL and KC.
3. By taking UNL, the West was already secured enough.

Marc, I’m far from the only one suggesting that the B1G could have initially started with 14. Delaney himself suggested it at the time, for instance. But whatever. Your mind is made up regardless of the evidence.

Richard, a Pac 16 would not have been a direct geographic threat, but it very well could have triggered other conferences to expand to keep up, competitiveness-wise. Especially if the Pac 16 had just added power schools like Texas and Oklahoma. The B1G very well may have felt the need to respond at that point. And from what I’ve heard, part of the plan was to add Missouri in that scenario. And that scenario came very, very close to happening. But politics between Texas, Texas A&M, and Baylor nixed the moves.

I don’t know where this will end up, but it’s in response to Andy’s BS…….

Had the Big 10 added Nebraska, MO, and Kansas at the same time, those three would have been the three WORST schools academically in the Big 10, by a significant margin. And that’s not only at the undergraduate level, but (perhaps more importantly) also at the graduate level. Of the 3 MO is probably the best at the uindergrad level, KU the best at the graduate level, but all 3 significantly trail the Big 10 schools.
.
Nebraska was a huge reach in academic terms for the Big 10….schools like Ill, UM, and NW were against adding NEB, although they were talked into making the vote look unanimous .

I for one wouild have added MO instead of NEB for the reasons you constantly spout…..but I was very much in the minority with that view amoung Big 10 fans.I think most everyone else thinks NEB and MD were better additions to the BIG 10 than MO. As far as MO v. Rutgers, there are/were solid reasons for adding Rutgers. It’s at least a close call, imno, and I’ve studied it pretty carefully..

Now neither school is setting the world on fire in grad school rankings, but it would be a huge stretch to say that Kansas is better than Missouri considering they rank behind Missouri in most areas.

As for the rest of what you said, people think Nebraska is better because of their football past (10+ years ago) and only for that. Mizzou has been better at football over the last 10 years. Better basketball. Better academics. Bigger state. Bigger market. More students. More alums.

As for Rutgers…. we’ve beaten this to death but at some point for membership in an athletics conference athletics have to mean something. Rutgers has maybe the worst athletic tradition of any “major” athletic department in the entire country. If not the worst then definitely bottom 5. That matters.

Maryland is fine. Athletics are worse than Missouri’s but not by that much. Market is the same size. Fanbase is smaller. Academics are better. So I have no problem putting Missouri behind Maryland. But that’s not really relevant to anything I said.

and before vp comes in and takes issue with my statement that Missouri has better athletics than Maryland, I’ll remind him that I don’t care about non-revenue sports like lacross and men’s soccer and stuff like that. I know he does and that’s fine. But those sports don’t make any money and aren’t really relevant realignment.

Oh, that part about adding Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas is my opinion.

OK, so we are in agreement: the only person known to have favored that option is a Missouri fan.

Although the Ohio State AD said that’s what he favored in one of his interviews a while back.

I don’t recall the OSU AD saying that he ever favored going straight from 11 to 14 with those three schools. I recall a vaguer statement that OSU favored adding more schools in the midwest, but not specific as to which schools, or in what time frame.

But the part about the B1G expanding to 14 if the Pac 12 added Texas, OU, etc, that was talked about pretty widely back in 2010.

Yes, I agree, if the Pac-12 had been able to implement that plan, many other dominoes would have fallen.

“As for the rest of what you said, people think Nebraska is better because of their football past (10+ years ago) and only for that. Mizzou has been better at football over the last 10 years. Better basketball. Better academics. Bigger state. Bigger market. More students. More alums.”

Yes Mizzou has those advantages over UNL, but Nebraska’s football history was by far the most important element of the equation. If the stated goal was to expand to 12 to create a conference title game, a massive, uber-passionate fanbase of a historic national power with top-shelf name recognition is a no-brainer target.

Nebraska was not added for the same reasons as UMd and Rutgers; the latter schools were targeted primarily (or in Rutgers case, purely) as a market/TV/BTN/academics play. UMd is mediocre as a football program, and Rutgers is historically terrible/irrelevant (absent 1869).

Nebraska fans don’t realize they would have the same football problems in the Big 12 as it has in the Big Ten — and in sports other than football, the B1G is head and shoulders above the XII. And I haven’t even brought the BTN or TV revenues into the discussion. Husker fans are as football-obsessed as their soon-to-be Terrapin brethren are basketball-obsessed — but if they both examined the big picture, they’d realize that the Big Ten has it all over their old conferences.

Andy, get back to me a dozen years from now, especially if the revenue gap between the ACC and other conferences keeps growing and its mediocre football culture continues to be a hindrance more than a help to Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and others in that league that don’t view it as a mere prelim to its precious basketball. If ESPN isn’t truly serious about beginning an ACC network, the cracks will begin to show.

If the B1G continues to slide into mediocrity with a declining Michigan and Nebraska, weak programs like Rutgers and Maryland entering the mix, and then the ACC does well with Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame, then I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the ACC is in a relatively strong position in a dozen years.

If the ACC doesn’t do well on the field and the B1G does then maybe there will be an opening. Maybe.

Unless multiple ACC teams win national championships over the next decade (Florida State winning two by itself won’t be enough), the ACC will continue to be perceived poorly in football compared to the Big Ten (tradition, small institutions and travel bases, etc.). The ACC has to go twice as fast to get half as far.

“If the B1G continues to slide into mediocrity with a declining Michigan and Nebraska, weak programs like Rutgers and Maryland entering the mix, and then the ACC does well with Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame, then I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the ACC is in a relatively strong position in a dozen years.”

I agree with vp19 on this. The ACC is not a revenue threat to the B1G in the near or medium term. It would take decades of top to bottom success for the ACC, combined with massive demographic losses in the B1G footprint combined with sustained ineptitude by B1G teams for it to forfeit its advantages over the ACC. Certainly, anything is possible. But a dozen years is too short of a time frame for this.

If the B1G continues to slide into mediocrity with a declining Michigan and Nebraska, weak programs like Rutgers and Maryland entering the mix, and then the ACC does well with Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame, then I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the ACC is in a relatively strong position in a dozen years.

It would probably take more than a dozen years for that to happen. Michigan continues to be one of the top handful of TV ratings draws, despite not having won a Big Ten championship in almost 10 years. In most of those 10 years, they didn’t even come close.

The traditional powers can easily endure very long periods of irrelevance without losing much of their TV drawing power. It may make no sense, but that is how it works. And unfortunately, it works the opposite way too. Rutgers could win the next 5 Big Ten titles, and they still wouldn’t be as good a TV draw as Ohio State.

5 straight B10 titles would definitely catapult RU in to the middle or upper-middle class, however, given their massive potential. Just look at Wisconsin before Alvarez and now. Before, fan interest was anemic in WI. Now, they are firmly a prince and sometimes top 10 in revenue.

RU is in an even more populous state with better recruiting grounds and next to the media capital of the world. It’s why the B10 added RU and UMD. There’s a lot of latent potential; a lot of casual fans who could be turned in to die-hard fans in their big alumni bases and a lot of neutrals that could be captured in the markets that they’re in.

Volleyball, wrestling, men’s basketball, M and W soccer, swimming, M and wWHockey, M and W Lax………in what sports is the Big 12 significantly better? And before you say football, take a good look at the Big 10 and Big 12 head to head over the years.

Volleyball is very recent-last couple of years. Big 10 has more depth in wrestling, but Iowa St. and Oklahoma St. and OU aren’t slackers (OSU #1 with 34 titles, Iowa #2 with 23, ISU #3 with 8, OU #4 with 7). Swimming again more depth, but Texas has 10 men’s and 9 women’s national championships, all since 1981.

Big 12 is significantly better in most of the spring sports. Baseball, the Big 10 might as well be division II.

Agree that B12 isn’t wrestling slackers but they don’t compare. They have no supporting cast. All fourteen in the B1G wrestle providing support for third three kings. Recently only OkSU has consistently acted like the king that OU and ISU have been in the past (although OU may be re emerging)…plus WVU…

Um. These types of Nebraska message board threads will happen for another 10-20 years. Penn State boards STILL occasionally devolve into debates about whether joining the B1G was a good idea. Occasionally, a PSU fan will boldly pronounce that PSU should “join the ACC” or some such.

In short, there is nothing particularly noteworthy here about a bunch of Nebraska fans ranting about whether joining/staying in the B1G is good or bad.

What would be noteworthy is if the PTB @ Nebraska make noises like this.

For all the angst on the PSU boards, I never saw a news/media story reporting that the PTB @ PSU are unhappy with their conference affiliation.

Considering that Nebraska has been trying to get in to the B10 since the ’90s (true story; you can find newspaper articles on this after PSU joined when Devaney was AD there), they’re almost certainly closer to ecstatic than unhappy.

Actually, Nebraska has been trying to get into the Big Ten for more than 100 years. I recall reading they tried around 1910 (after Michigan left for a few years) and I think they even tried around 1900 or so. This is all google-able, either regular google or Google News Archives.

There is no doubt the folks who matter at UNL (chancellor, AD’s, coaches, state politicians, major donors) are by and large thrilled to be in the Big Ten for many, many reasons. Message board rants have little value by way of insight into a fan base as a whole.

I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the Nebraska fans have a very different opinion of the B1G than the Nebraska administration.

But it’s worth noting that the cited evidence is a Rivals message board. In my experience, Rivals attracts the most delusional subset of a school’s fan base. I follow a number of Michigan sites, and by far the highest proportion of nonsense posts is found on Rivals. The occasional spot-check of other schools’ Rivals sites suggests that this is not unique to Michigan.

In some ways, it might make sense for Nebraska and the Big 10 for Nebraska to move to the PAC. Especially as UNL is no longer in the AAU and probably will never get back in. They are the ONLY non-AAU school in the Big 10 and that may be how things remain. One wonders if the administration at Lincoln is OK with a permanent reputation as the worst academic school in their conference.

In the PAC, UNL would have the same benefits and be viewed much more fairly academically.

I am not saying such a move is likely soon as the Big 10 makes more money, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens 4-8 years from now…Especially if Nebraska continues to have 4 loss seasons and complaints about recruiting.

In some ways, it might make sense for Nebraska and the Big 10 for Nebraska to move to the PAC.

I cannot think of any way it makes sense.

One wonders if the administration at Lincoln is OK with a permanent reputation as the worst academic school in their conference.

Are you kidding? Nebraska is delighted to be in their company. Why wouldn’t they be? Anyhow, your premise is somewhat flawed. Most of Nebraska’s academic programs are close to Big Ten norms. They’re not a Michigan or a Wisconsin, but they’re not grossly out of place. What killed their AAU membership, was that they don’t have a medical school in Lincoln.

In the PAC, UNL would have the same benefits and be viewed much more fairly academically.

What benefits do they now lack? In what way are they being treated unfairly?

I am not saying such a move is likely soon as the Big 10 makes more money, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens 4-8 years from now…Especially if Nebraska continues to have 4 loss seasons and complaints about recruiting.

No school has ever voluntarily switched leagues to lose money. The Pac would pay less, and they’d have to play most of their league games two time zones away. Recruiting certainly would not be any better in the Pac; it would probably be worse.

I’m sure the PAC would have welcomed UNL. Why weren’t they included in leu of TT, or originally subing for aTm? They would have eventually landed on their feet, but the potential demise of the B12, or having to commit long term to it to save it had them concerned enough to tell the B10 basically “now, or not for a long time.” Never heard any westward leaning rumors at all.

Certainly I mean no knock against Nebraska as an academic institution. I agree that they are peer to a number of Big Ten schools, but I am talking about perception.

When Nebraska was AAU I am sure that your statement of delight would be the case, but even if Nebraska added a medical school, the way things appear to be trending in the AAU, the odds are firmly against them even being readmitted. It doesn’t seem likely that non-AAU schools will be added to the Big 10. That means that they will likely always be the only non-AAU school in the Big 10.

Fairly or unfairly, they will be considered the academic dog of the Big Ten, admitted only due to their football reputation. This is what I am getting at with the “fairly” statement. Nebraska would be considered at least middle of the pack academically in most other contract conferences. Do they want to deal with that?

The Pac is about half and half AAU and has Colorado, a long time rival, and California recruiting.

As I said in my initial statement, I do not see them leaving the Big Ten any time in the immediate future as the Big Ten is a cash cow conference today, but we don’t know how the breakdown of the cable model will affect the Big Ten. What happens as more people who aren’t sports fans (like my sister) opt for a roku and netflicks instead of cable (and carriage fees for conferences). The money conferences get are largely fueled by non-sports fans. What happens if they shift away from cable? It seems to be happening fairly quickly.

The Big Ten is in a great position today and is rightly using their leverage today, but that could turn fairly quickly to favor conferences that are getting guaranteed payouts.

But I did and do concede the point that it is very unlikely that Nebraska would take noticeably less money to join the Pac-12 today.

Fairly or unfairly, they will be considered the academic dog of the Big Ten, admitted only due to their football reputation.

But it’s mostly fans who are saying that. In the corridors of academia, where academics do business with each other, is the rest of the Big Ten treating Nebraska like trailer trash from the other side of the tracks? I doubt it.

Fan message boards aren’t going to prompt Nebraska to move to a lower-paying conference that’s two time zones away. You suggested a time frame of 4-8 years from now. Well, the Big Ten is now renegotiating its TV deal, and if they do as the other leagues have done, they’ll be locked in until the middle or late 2020s.

Of course, the pay model for college sports could change eventually to the schools’ detriment, but probably not to the point where the Pac-12 actually pays more. The geography is what it is. In at least the last 50 years, the pay model for sports has moved in only one direction: up.

Not only did they get that wrong (it’s 6 in the top 13) or 7 in the top 20), the B10 has 8 in the top 20 to the SEC’s 7. The B10 also has 2 of the top 3 before the SEC’s first 2 appear at #4t. I think you could call it a draw.

“Johnny was a tremendous person and basketball coach,” said Michigan coach John Beilein in a statement released by the school. “We will always value the many positives he brought to both the University of Michigan and college basketball in general.”

Maybe, but their guard play is excellent. That matters in college hoops a great deal. I really like this Petteway kid. Do you know if he is a transfer or is he breaking out this year?
Nebraska has a nice squad…

Petteway played a season as a true frosh at Texas Tech before transferring to Nebraska. He’ll have three years at Neb. I agree he looks like a player, and Nebraska will be a solid team, which is a step up for the program. Miles has it going in the right direction.

@Anthony – This is the best Nebraska team I’ve seen in a while. Petteway looks like the player that Nebraska has been missing, the guy who keeps the Huskers from having the five to seven minute scoring droughts. I expect this team to better in the Big Ten than last year than last, but I think they’re still think they are a year away from being an NCAA team.

A player to keep an eye on is PG Tai Webster. He’s a true freshman that is a veteran of International play. He has shown some flashes of being a very good player.

We know that UM would never do it, but Dantonio has proven that he can win in the B10 with a program in the state of MI. Hoke has done a great job recruiting, but on the field, his team has struggles. What could Dantonio do with the much greater brand and resources at UM?

Dantonio was often mentioned as a potential Michigan head coach in the late Carr years, when it was clear Carr was going to retire soon, but no one was sure when. By the time Carr stepped down, Dantonio was already at MSU.

I think Hoke is destined to be fired, but the A.D. has given him a very strong vote of confidence, so he’s going to be there at least one more year. Who should be on the list to replace him is one of the most debated questions among the Michigan faithful.

It is pretty clear that when Rodriguez was fired, finding a “Michigan Man” was at the top of the A.D.’s criteria. No one with Hoke’s mediocre resume would have gotten a sniff for the Michigan job, if he hadn’t been a former Lloyd Carr assistant. Half the faithful continue to throw out names with a Michigan connection, while the others argue that the school should cast a wider net. I’m in the latter camp.

I agree that UM would never look at Dantonio, but I don’t think Dantonio would be open to it either. He’s sitting pretty in East Lansing, and if he leaves it’s going to have to be a bigger step up than just an intra-state transfer.

Duke couldn’t catch a break. Aggies got the calls that could have gone either way and then the refs swallowed their whistles the 4th quarter. Flagrant holding on the last (or next to last) A&M TD as the receiver had a hand full of jersey, three PI penalties in a row not called-two flagrant-on the last drive before the interception. And then their freshman QB made freshman mistakes. Manziel should have gotten a couple of unsportsmanlike penalties. Would have liked to have seen Rice and Duke win today, but Rice couldn’t match up and Duke didn’t make the plays they needed. Cutliffe didn’t do a good job with his play calling in the 2nd half after moving the ball at will in the first half.

Still think Herbstreit has GOT to be reading from a prepared script. He just said the SEC defenses have proven in bowls how good they are. Sorry, 48 points, scores the first 6 times the opponent touches the ball (with only mediocre time management keeping it from being 6 TDs), next two stops around your own 30, does not demonstrate all the SEC has superior defenses. MSU holding Rice to 7 doesn’t demonstrate a whole lot. Ole Miss holding GT in a bowl to 17 doesn’t demonstrate a lot. Everyone shuts down GTs option when they have a month to prepare.

Bowl games have really been duds this year. Very few interested me. But very few have been interesting games to anyone. A&M/Duke was entertaining. SU/MN was at least close, even if what little I watched was pretty ugly. Very few close games.

Three CFB related items that I am grateful for this coming year; mine are all positives by subtraction, and anyone wishing to add their own for discussion would be great! Otherwise we’ll all just be sitting around watching the Bee One Gee lose bowl games. (Thankyou Cornhuskers!)

I appreciate the job BOB did at Happy Valley, and I also understand taking a job in the NFL, but it was classless the way he trashed people and lied to recruits on his way out. In addition, the School did not have to give him a bigger contract nor lower the buyout. As for the “Paterno Supporters” (I referred to them as “Stepford Wives” here so I am no fan either). But, you are going to have a vocal minority who support him no matter what (Sandusky Incident included). However, as time passes, his presence will play an ever decreasing role on Campus and on the Football Field. One more message for BOB, if you hated the declining presence of Paterno overshadowing you, get used to the Dallas Cowboys and Texas Longhorns in Texas popularity, they will always be ahead of the Texans. Not quite as rough as being a Pitt Panther Coach in Steeler and Nitt Country, but pretty close,

I don’t know of any coach who has ever told a recruit that he was willing to leave for the right offer. Coaches always say they’re staying, until the day they’re not. Whether that’s honorable behavior, it’s standard in the profession. I can’t put that one on BOB.

In addition, the School did not have to give him a bigger contract nor lower the buyout.

I am still struggling to understand why they lowered the buyout.

As for the “Paterno Supporters” (I referred to them as “Stepford Wives” here so I am no fan either). But, you are going to have a vocal minority who support him no matter what (Sandusky Incident included). However, as time passes, his presence will play an ever decreasing role on Campus and on the Football Field.

I am not sure about that. Michigan fans still bring up the glory days of Bo all the time, and Bo has been out of coaching for decades. They also over-romanticize Bo, choosing to ignore his horrendous bowl record. Now, covering up child rapes is obviously in a different category than losing football games. Nevertheless, I suspect that Paterno’s shadow will linger over that program for many years to come.

One more message for BOB, if you hated the declining presence of Paterno overshadowing you, get used to the Dallas Cowboys and Texas Longhorns in Texas popularity…

I agree: that one’s a head-scratcher. How anyone could take the PSU job and not expect that is really mind-boggling.

Marc, great retired Coaches and Players are a presence at Facilities (Bear Bryant at Alabama or Dean Smith at North Carolina come to mind, so does “Monument Park” at Yankee Stadium). But popularity does diminish over time (Derek Jeter getting booed at Yankee Stadium is an example of this). What happened with Sandusky will essentially put Paterno in the same company as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and other tainted athletes. They will always have their defenders but as far as being like Babe Ruth or Bear Bryant, popular for decades after their death? That is not happening.

We shall see. I am certainly not disagreeing that popularity diminishes over time; the only question is how long it will be.

There isn’t any precedent quite like Paterno, and I certainly think the “tained players” aren’t comparable. Without steroids, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens probably wouldn’t have set all the records that made them so popular in the first place. Once you know what they did, in a sense it invalidates all of their statistics.

But Joe Paterno was already a legend before the events that eventually cost him his job. Although the NCAA chose to express its disapproval by erasing all the games that he won after a certain somewhat arbitrary date, there isn’t a very good argument (as there is with steroids) that Paterno’s admittedly deplorable behavior helped his team on the field.

Over time, I see more and more people saying publicly that Penn State and Paterno were jobbed by the NCAA. Obviously, that’s a very prevalent view among PSU fans. While Paterno will never be forgiven for his failure to act, I think that over time, it will probably be recognized that with one very serious exception, he was the great coach that everyone always thought he was before the Sandusky scandal broke.

That is certainly my view, and I’m saying that as someone who always hated Penn State on the football field.

As a fellow Nitt, I pretty much echo what you wrote. I was stunned when BO’B received so much NFL attention last year after one season at PSU. How can the NFL not have wanted him one year prior while being an assistant for Belichek and Brady? We’re we, PSU, so short of options that we were willing to take a one and done coach? Was our administration so intent on going outside of PSU that a one and done was OK, or did they not know this was possible? I give him a ‘ton of credit’ for coming into the PSU situation and stabilizing it. I also give a ‘ton of credit’ to the Mauti/McGloin senior leadership and class for holding it all together. PSU is obviously way better off than we were two years ago but I believe any number of coaches could have gotten us to this point. I personally would have loved for Tom Bradley to have gotten the chance to take us through this. Probably not with a 15-9 record, but certainly with more cohesion. And I, too, am not a JoePa guy.

Large R, I am certainly no fan of Paterno (including being a figurehead Coach the last five years of his career), or what BOB did. However we did not become SMU and he kept Hackenberg here instead of going to Alabama, so that counts for something. My biggest problem is the way BOB bashed others on the way out. As for the next Coach, we needed and to be honest, still need someone not tainted by the Sandusky Incident. There are a lot of Penn State haters out there, and it affects Recruiting and Perception (and they are not all found in Oakland, Pa. ( Pitt Campus)). I hope James Franklin gets the job because he is from Pa, without the Sandusky/Paterno taint, and he has the stomach to recruit and win at a tough place (Vanderbilt)

I’ve mentioned on here a couple of times that the ghosts of Frank Solich’s firing still loom large in Lincoln. In 2001, Urban Meyer said something to the effect of ‘who wants to coach at a school where nine wins isn’t enough.’ There just isn’t a Nebraska guy ready or home run hire waiting the in wings where they could get away with firing an eight or nine win coach. Nebraska knows that if they’re going to fire Pelini, they’re going to roll they dice with a journeyman and as bad as the Bill Callahan experiment was there isn’t a lot of stomach for that.

As awful as the Huskers looked at times this year, there is a lot of talent coming back on both sides of the ball and a manageable schedule (Miami, @Mich St., @Wisc) should allow the Huskers to break the 9 win regular season schedule.

He is probably too old to take the job for the long term commitment that Nebraska is going to desire. In addition, Solich hasn’t shown anything in the MAC to show he should be leading a program like Nebraska.

With only the BCS games, as well as the Cotton, GoDaddy, and BBVA Compass Bowls remaining, here’s the Conference Bowl Standings.

Sunbelt 1-0 with one game remaining.
SEC 5-1 with four games remaining.
Pac-12 6-2 with one game remaining.
Big XII 2-1 with three games remaining.
Ind 2-1.
CUSA 3-3.
MWC 3-3.
ACC 3-6 with two games remaining.
AAC 1-2 with two games remaining.
B1G 1-4 with two games remaining.
MAC 0-4 with one game remaining.

An interesting question was how many teams finished their bowl game with their starting QB. UGA, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and LSU were on backups. S. Carolina’s QB was injured much of the season, but made the bowl game. Texas was also on their backup. Oregon’s starter was still playing, but had been way below par the last 2 or 3 games (unfortunately was close to par in the bowl).

“Sunbelt 1-0 with one game remaining.
SEC 5-1 with four games remaining.
Pac-12 6-2 with one game remaining.
Big XII 2-1 with three games remaining.
Ind 2-1.
CUSA 3-3.
MWC 3-3.
ACC 3-6 with two games remaining.
AAC 1-2 with two games remaining.
B1G 1-4 with two games remaining.
MAC 0-4 with one game remaining.”

So far 1 loss teams are 3-4 with Alabama, Fresno and NIU losing to teams with more losses. Michigan St., Louisville and UCF over 1 loss Baylor being the winners. 2 loss teams are 3-1-Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina the winners with Stanford the loser.

Will be a lot of shuffling at the bottom of the polls. 5 of the bottom 7 in the AP poll and 7 of the 9 “other receiving votes” have lost so far. Only 20 A&M beating 22 Duke and 25 ND beating 6-6 Rutgers won, along with #26 USC vs Fresno and #33 Washington vs unranked BYU.

If you watch a few Stanford games, you’ll notice that Shaw’s playcalling can be described as mediocre at best.

Granted, unlike pretty much any other B10 team, MSU has an elite secondary, but that whole last Stanford drive was too conservative. Then he called the TO before hand, so there was no chance to get the ball back.

The call would be fine against most teams, but not MSU. They are the best run D in the country and had stuffed multiple runs up the middle earlier in the game. It’s not like it was a short 1 yard they needed, either.

I hate it. Throw a 3 yard pass to the tight end for a TD. EVERYONE was clogging the center. Arrogance. Stanford thought they should do what they do best which is power football. But MSU is best at stopping that and really sold out.

The call was especially egregious, when you bear in mind that with 3:19 remaining, 75 yards to go and only one time-out, Stanford called four straight runs. OK, maybe you call one run in that situation, hoping to catch MSU napping in a pass prevent. But four straight runs against that defense?

I also hated the way MSU played it so conservatively with 3 1/2 minutes to go—ran it twice against a stacked line and asked Cook to make a play on 3rd and 8. The pass option was wide open on 1st and 2nd downs. Worked out for them though.

I look at MSU’s calls as having faith in their defense. They only needed to avoid a mistake, run 2 minutes off the clock and then force Stanford to go the length of the field in a couple minutes. By running, they give Stanford only 1 more chance with the ball.

Now I know people are going to make comparisons between UCF and Boise State. Here’s one major difference: UCF is located in much more fertile territory for recruiting purposes. I would think demand for playing UCF (and even USF) OOC would shoot up after this Fiesta Bowl.

Big Ten teams especially should seek H&H’s with UCF. FSU and especially UF are hard to do those with, and Miami isn’t exactly easy. Quality opponents are important in the OOC schedule, and Big Ten schools aside from Ohio State can always use any edge they can get with improving access to recruits in Florida.

The incentive for ACC and SEC schools to play UCF and USF might be a little less since their exposure in Florida is already more established, although the enlargening of the conferences do mean less frequent trips to the state than in years past. As for the Big 12 or Pac 12… I have no idea.

The top B10 teams can still buy games against UCF and USF without giving up a home game to play at their place. Yes, you give up a chance to play in FL, but home games have huge financial value to the big schools. There are also multiple bowl opportunities to play in FL.

I think home and homes make more sense for the lower B10 teams, with smaller stadiums and fewer FL bowl games historically.

I understand that thinking but UCF is somewhat unique in that while it’s a G5 school it is located in an area with a natural recruiting base and they have showed that they won’t necessarily roll over like a FIU would. Mississippi doesn’t produce nearly as many athletes, so a Mississippi team would potentially benefit more from playing a B10 team, especially one from Ohio or Pennsylvania, than any B10 playing a game in Mississippi. Playing a P5 team from Georgia, NC or VA is another matter.

I see no shame in schools like Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa doing straight up home and homes with a UCF. PU and U of I have already had them with Cincinnati–what’s the difference? Boise State has had H&H’s with Oregon and Washington and has one in the future with Florida State. Should those schools be embarrassed?

I don’t think there is anything wrong with scheduling some games against G5 schools, especially upper echelon ones. Granted, Brian is right that the schools with 100,000+ seat stadiums, and maybe even those with like Wisconsin and MSU, are unlikely to do H&H’s with a UCF, but the rest of the league doesn’t have the same leverage.

Iowa won’t do it because their annual H&H with Iowa State severely limits their flexibility.

Otherwise, you and Brian are in agreement: the top half of the Big Ten won’t travel to UCF, but the bottom half probably would seriously consider it. Purdue is going to have some schedule openings now that ND isn’t on their schedule every year any more.

When a P5 school schedules a Go5 school they do it to win. That makes UCF, Boise State, etc. bad choices to schedule. If the lower level B1G schools want FL exposure they should be scheduling 2 for 1’s with FIU or FAU rather than H&H against UCF.

Look at the stats posted on this board where P5 is broken out against Go5. No attention is paid to relative rank of the Go5 schools. A P5 loss to a Go5 school is just one step above losing to a FCS school. Due to perception, the P5 school that loses takes a much larger hit than the Go5 school gains by winning. Therefore, P5 schools should only schedule competitive games with other P5 schools if they can manage that scheduling.

As noted, UCF only lost to #9 SC and beat #6 Baylor. So do you expect UCF to be right behind SC at about #8 in the final poll, or is it likely that being a Go5 school UCF will not benefit as much as Baylor is trashed by losing? Now if Baylor had taken a much bigger loss to Alabama in the Sugar Bowl I think they would finish better in the polls. As I said it is a perception thing, and due to that perception it is bad scheduling for any P5 school to schedule a Go5 school that they do not believe they have at least 85% probability of a win.

I suppose Washington, Oregon, FSU, MSU, and UGa are stupid, according to you, as they all have scheduled or will schedule Boise.

Luckily for the rest of us, most AD’s try to schedule some interesting games, even if they are against Go5 schools, along with body bag games. I have little interest in a body bag game that doesn’t involve my team.

Also, hopefully the new playoff committee will reward strength of schedule like they say they will. Unlike you, they understand that there’s no shame in playing a good Boise team.

Richard:
No it is stupid for Virginia (which did), Indiana, Purdue, or Kansas to schedule Boise State. WA, OR, MSU, GA, oSu , and FSU believe they will beat Boise State 9 times out of 10 so those schools are not expecting a Go5 loss. Ole Miss is getting the $$ and exposure from the Atlanta neutral site game with Boise.

Not sure about Fresno-Utah, but the rest of the games are good. All the P5 schools should be heavily favored. Note that B12 bottom feeder Kansas scheduled AAC bottom feeder Memphis rather than UCF, Houston, etc. The last thing a bad P5 football program should do is prove how bad they are by losing to a Go5 school.

The worst thing IL could do is allow NIU to prove it is a better football program on the field. In this case, just like pro boxers, there is no shame in ducking the fight, or at least less shame than losing. Purdue (and IU, MN, MD, Rutgers) should be scheduling Akron, Kent State, etc. rather than NIU. Iowa will usually beat NIU, so I do not fault them for scheduling NIU even though they got upset this year.

UCF’s one loss this season was at home to South Carolina. I could see other P5 schools scheduling UCF in the future, especially schools serving out a bowl ban. Orlando could be a cheaper alternative than Hawaii.

UCF is now probably the #1 expansion candidate among the G5 schools, when you look at location, student enrollment, facilities (new on campus stadium), and a signature win. The Knights probably have more going for them right now than Utah and TCU did in 2000. UCF is not your father’s commuter school anymore.

Regarding other home and homes, Ole Miss and Miss State routinely schedule home and homes with nearby Memphis and Tulane because of proximity, recruiting, and local alums.

I agree UCF would make a great addition to a Conference, but the problem for the Knights have is there is not a lot of places for them to move to. Obviously the ACC with FSU and Miami, and the SEC with Florida are out, and the B10 and Pac 12, are self explanatory. The only place is the Big XII (probably with USF).

Yes, it’s a very strange situation…….right now, a duo of Cincy and UCF to the Big 12 would look pretty strong although I think that, in the end, the reason for that league’s exixtence is UK and OK only.

I would think that if the ACC somehow disintegrates, despite Swofford’s best efforts, that GT and Miami would join FSU and Clemson. GT games vs Clemson are very important to GT fans. FSU considers games vs Miami as important and also wants more regular games in Atlanta. So I could see Miami, FSU, GT and Clemson to B12 or another conference if the ACC breaks up.

Duke may or may not go depending on if they can tag along with UNC. They might be a critical piece to whoever wants to land UNC the most but, otherwise, UNC and UVA might be the better pair. On the other hand, the B1G agreeing to land 4 might make it easier for schools to leave the ACC but going to 18 would be awkward and also raise questions about conference cohesion.

The B12 could end up helping the B1G land the more coveted pair of schools (UNC,UVA) by agreeing to add six (the four I mentioned in the first paragraph + Louisville and either Pitt, Cincy or Duke). Fox may have a big role behind the scenes.

In the end, after typing all these words, I don’t think the schools are leaving any time soon.

UCF is now probably the #1 expansion candidate among the G5 schools, when you look at location, student enrollment, facilities (new on campus stadium), and a signature win. The Knights probably have more going for them right now than Utah and TCU did in 2000. UCF is not your father’s commuter school anymore.

You can ignore the signature win. It would take about 15 more of those, before “winning” would be a factor in any conference’s decision to add UCF. Historically, it’s far more common for a school like UCF to regress to the mean, than it is for that type of win to inaugurate a new era. I’m not taking anything away from what they achieved this season, but expansion is a 50-year decision.

Beyond that, the Big XII has a number of other problems to solve, before they could even think of expanding. By the time they get around to it, assuming they ever do, we’ll all have a lot more data on UCF.

(Anyhow, is beating Baylor ever a “signature win”? Obviously, the Bears are a higher-stature program than UCF, but they were something of a Cinderella themselves. UCF needs to go out and beat Florida State, or someone like that.)

“I’m not taking anything away from what they achieved this season, but expansion is a 50-year decision.”

Not true for every conference. If the ACC gets raided and loses FSU, expansion wouldn’t be a 50-year decision. Expansion would be a 1-year decision, as in “survive until next year and figure out what to do then”.

All expansion is relative, depending on the need. UCF would not be a Big 10 candidate because of academics, Pac 12 because of geography and ACC because they already have 2 Florida schools. SEC would be doubtful as they are already at 14 and apparently already told FSU they weren’t interested in them as #15. Houston wouldn’t be considered by the Big 12 (4 Texas schools), SEC (A&M would throw a fit), Big 10 (academics) and probably not ACC (geography). But they are probably #1 on the Pac 12 list (we are talking G5 schools).

You’re not going to “destroy” my other rantings because they were all true.

As for this, that’s a nice slight of hand to make it look like you’re saying something important, but the problem with your methodology is that you’re counting every program as equal. But we all know that Law, Medicine, Business, and Engineering are of a higher level of importance than Audiology, Fine Arts, “Nursing-Anesthesia”, and “Nursing-Midwifery”.

Also, Missouri’s strongest area, Journalism, isn’t even on this list for some reason. Most recent Journalism rankings from December 2013:

So in other words you completely ignored everything I said and then just repeated yourself.

What it all comes down to is that KU is somewhat stronger in the Arts and Science PhD programs, and Missouri is somewhat stronger in the major professional programs like Medicine, Business, Law, and Engineering. And ku has some specialty programs their strong at in things like audiology, midwifery, and occupational therapy. Missouri has strong programs in journalism, veterinary medicine, and information science.

And then there are a whole bunch of programs Missouri is fairly strong at that aren’t even listed here: agriculture, agronomy, horticulture, food science, plant science, hotel and restaurant management, bioinformatics, etc. There are probably some ku programs that aren’t on here too, like architecture, for instance.

How one would weight all this is a matter of opinion. But there’s little doubt that Missouri is ranked higher in most of the bigger programs, and Kansas is ranked higher in most of the smaller programs. Some of those programs Kansas is ranked high in probably only have half a dozen students at most.

So do you dispute what I said? you think midwifery should count as much as law? Speech pathology should count as much as business? Fine Arts should count as much as medicine?

To my eye you completely ignored all of my main points. Probably because you couldn’t counter them.

To use an athletics analogy, this is like saying (for the sake of argument) that Missouri is better than Kansas in Football, Baseball, Women’s Basketball, Women’s Softball, Women’s Volleyball, Track and Field, and Gymnastics. But somehow Kansas has the better athletic department because they have better Men’s Basketball to go along with better fencing, bowling, water polo, equestrian, synchronized swimming, lacrosse, sailing, rowing, women’s rowing, and women’s sailing.

Yeah, you *could* count it that way. That’s the way the Director’s cup counts it, for instance.

But everybody but the director’s cup cares more about the big stuff than the small stuff. And Missouri is better at most of the big stuff than Kansas.

You constantly tout Mo’s virtues over Neb. You certainly are a sly fox, because you primarily cite the same type of demographic and academic virtues for MO over NEB that you completely ignore when it comes to the Mo-Rut comparison. Lets look at the Neb-Mo athletic comparison, shall we?

Neb has 19 recognized NCs in sports not called bowling—8 more in bowling..And 5 more in football, one of only 2 sports you say matter. Before you denigrate bowling….maybe MO ought to take it up, because MO has 2 MCs all-time in all sports, the last being in 1965. Yep, the last time MO won anything was when LBJ was president. Frankly, MO sports is best known for constantly choking–just within the last two years highly ranked MO teams bit the dust, once again. The football team loses at home to a replacement QB, then allows 1000 yards rushing to Auburn in the SEC champ. game. The undefeated volleyball team loses at home to an unranked Purdue team that lost 9 games in the Big Ten alone. And the higly ranked softball team fails to make it to OK

City. Know who was there? Nebraska.

NEB typically ranks 15-25 spots ahead of MO in DC standings, so not a good comp there. Now, you want to talk football, and say MO has won

continuing……2 more games over the last 10 years, or some such drivel. Yep, won 2 more games when for most of that time NEB has been coached by a guy who is certifiably insane.

Did I mention that while NEB and MO were in the same conference, NEB was near the top of the schools in conf. titles won in all sports (#2 ?), while MO was near the bottom? Or that NEB has a uniquely devoted fanbase for ALL their sports? No other school gets 8000 people to their volleyball games. I realize that’s because there’s nothing else to do in Nebraska, but that’s beside the point.

So, Andy, while I would have added MO over NEB for academic, cultural, and geographic reasons, I certainly understand why most Big 10 fans felt otherwise.

continuing….First of all, MD over Missouri was an absolute no brainer. Better academically by significant margins in both undergrad and grad. 25 NCs, not including another in football, and 1 in basketball, the only sports you say matter. Located near all the $ in DC. Case closed.

As to RU…..again, signicantly better in both undergrad and grad studies.For example, RU is ranked in the top 30 in US News grad rankings in 11 areas v. 2 for MO. State school in NJ, a state with roughly twice the population of MO. Just more prestigious in every respect. Access to the NYC market. NJ is a very good state for FB recruiting, MO pretty poor. Very good local (NJ and NYC) recruiting area for basketball. So there’s a lot of upside to RU, as well as the downsides you exclusively focus on.

Hey, I used to like MO, until I started reading your nonsense. They are better for the SEC than for the Big 10. They get the SEC into the Midwest. Also, while they would have dumbed down the Big 10, they make the SEC smarter. Good for you guys. Just stop talking smack until you have something to back it up. Mo is no OSU, UM, MSU, PSU, NEB or Wisconsin. It’s not even an Iowa, Illinois, IU, NW, or Purdue. MO is a smaller, dumber Maryland minus 23 NCs.

In football Missouri has done better than Nebraska over the last 10 years. That’s a fact. Also, Missouri has played Nebraska about 100 times. Their lead in the series comes from a 25 game winning streak from 1979 through 2002. Take that out and the series is pretty much tied. Yes, Missouri was pretty damn bad for those 24 years. No doubt. But before and since then it’s been pretty even, including right now. In fact, Missouri’s doing quite a bit better at the moment. Time will tell where the two programs go in future years but I’m fairly optimistic.

Basketball it’s no comparison. Missouri has 23 conference titles and 26 NCAA tournament appearances. Nebraska has never even won an NCAA tournament game. Ever.

And then there’s the fact that Missouri’s population is three times higher than Nebraska’s. I’ve never heard a single person come up with any kind of justification for that that makes any sense.

But you know this, mushroom. You’ve always agreed that Missouri was the better pick over Nebraska. You’re just arguing to argue here. You must be bored.

As for your stuff about Maryland, it’s irrelevant. I’ve never disputed that Maryland should get the nod over Missouri just based on academics alone and the fact that their revenue sports aren’t that much worse than Missouri’s and their state population is almost as big as Missouri’s.

” That’s a fact. Also, Missouri has played Nebraska about 100 times. Their lead in the series comes from a 25 game winning streak from 1979 through 2002. Take that out and the series is pretty much tied.”

I mean, really? If you take out Iowa’s 20 consecutive win streak over NW, NW actually holds a series lead. But no one will ever suggest the two schools are nearly that close together.

But more to the point, UNL’s 25 win streak over Mizzou is part of Nebraska’s almost 40 years of sustained success in CFB. That’s the sort of sustained success that creates durable brands that sustain downturns. (I once saw an article that mentioned UNL as a top 10 TV draw for the entire 1980’s).

There are good arguments for Mizzou over Nebraska as a school, and for Mizzou’s recent football success. But trying to minimize a 25 win streak in the process is kind of silly.

The point of bringing that up is to show that Nebraska’s seeming dominance in the head-to-head series isn’t a result of a sustained century of dominance, but rather 75 years of parity with 25 years of dominance inserted in the middle. Maybe this is meaningless to you but there is a difference.

There’s been debate over the years as to whether this is unique or not, but in my opinion it’s fairly unique. Missouri had a decently good football program up until the 1980s. Then in the 80s and 90s it wasn’t just bad, it was bottom-feeder, celler dweller, losing games 77-0 pitiful. Then in the 2000s Missouri rebuilt into a decently good program again. Now, if you average all of those years together than Missouri’s football GPA is something like a 2.5, which looks like a C+ average. But you can get a 2.5 GPA with an A, two Bs, and an F. The F, for Missouri, is the 80s and 90s. So it goes with Missouri’s all time record both overall and with Nebraska specifically.

Ok, sure. And yes, Nebraska has been the better program overall. But point is Missouri has held it’s own for long stretches and has been the better program over the last 10 years. And tred-wise, Missouri is trending up and Nebraska is trending down.

As for Rutgers… I struggle to think of 3 or 4 major athletic programs that could reasonably be considered worse. What an awful pick. The B1G got tremendously weaker because of that stinker of a pick.

As far as where Missouri would rank in a B1G, well, not near the top of course.

Academics aren’t that much different from Iowa, Indiana, Michigan State, and Purdue, and better than Nebraska.

Football is easily ahead of Rutgers and Maryland as well as Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, and Minnesota, and at least over the last 10 years is at least on par with or ahead of Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Iowa, and Nebraska. Wisconsin and Ohio State have been better.

Basketball has been better than Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Penn State, and Rutgers. Has been on the same level as Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin a lot of years. Definitely behind Michigan State, Indiana, and Ohio State.

So yeah, not super elite, but better than Nebraska or Rutgers and not that much worse than Maryland. And those were your choices, along with Kansas.

I don’t think mushroomgod was defending Rutgers on the basis of athletics, Actually, no one is.
Rutgers football historically sucks. Rutgers MBB is a remarkable failure, even more than football, based on its proximity to elite NYC recruits.

But the rest of the equation (academics, tv, BTN, potential with success, etc…) tips very much in Rutgers direction, for reasons previously stated (at length).

academics, yes
BTN, yes, if only because New Jersey has 30% more people than Missouri, and BTN is subscription based by state as I understand it.

“tv” – no way. Missouri had the 8th highest TV ratings in the country this year. I doubt Rutgers made the top 50.

“potential with success” – whatever that is, I haven’t seen much out of Rutgers. They’ve never succeeded in the past, so why expect it in the future? Missouri, on the other hand, has 4 division titles in the last 7 years and has averaged something like 27.5 wins per year in basketball over the last 5 years. I’d say their “potential” for conference chamapionships and even national championships is tremendously higher than Rutgers’s.

MO is to IU, PUR, Iowa, and MSU as those 4 schools are to Wisconsin or Illinois. I wouldn’t claim that IU’s academics aren’t that much different than Wisconsin’s,…..you sound pretty silly when you make the same argument about MO.

MU’s students ACT and SAT averages aren’t much different from Indiana, Purdue, Iowa or Michigan State. Slightly higher than some, slightly lower than others. System Endowment Size is the same story. Somewhat higher than some, somewhat lower than others, but basically about the same. Enrollment size of those four schools is fairly similar. Overall research budgets aren’t that far apart. In Business Mizzou is pretty far behind Indiana but pretty close to Purdue. Engineering Mizzou is pretty far back from Purdue but it doesn’t look like Indiana does much engineering. Medicine Mizzou beats out both. Also veterinary medicine. Then there’s all the areas of strength for Mizzou that your lists leave out: journalism, agriculture, horticultre, agronomy, food science, informatics, etc. Mizzou has strong programs in all of those areas, ranking as high as #1 in the nation in one of them, and yet they don’t make your lists.

Yeah, Mizzou’s a bit behind those schools in the overall USNews rankings, but the difference isn’t that huge.

Andy is correct, only in the very limited sense that Missouri lately has had better success on the football field than Nebraska. But fan loyalties and TV ratings appeal are so durable that it would take about 15–20 more years like that before Missouri would actually be the more desirable franchise.

Nebraska just shifted conferences. They lost their southern recruiting. They are steadily declining. Maybe they’re reverse it but I doubt it. I think they’re on their way to losing king status eventually. They’ll still have legacy king status because of the past of course.

Missouri has trended up but there is the question of how high their ceiling is. It’s possible that their ceiling is averaging 8 or 9 wins per year. That’s not going to get them any kind of king or even prince status.

The threat to Nebraska is TV and the nationalization of recruiting. They didn’t particularly recruit Texas any more than any other place prior to joining the Big 12. They went all over the country with a lot of recruiting in the Midwest and California. Now maybe there is more competition. You might have Alabama, Florida, Miami and FSU competing with you for the Chicago kid who is also being recruited by the Midwest universities. And you might have the same type of dynamic in California.

But all they are doing is going back to the recruiting that served them from the 70s to 90s.

MO struck it rich with those 2 great WRs, and Franklin. I tend to think MO is about as good as it ever will be.I’ll remind you that a year ago 90% of the Missouri board wanted the coach canned. On the other hand, Rutgers appeared to be on the verge of breaking through to the top 20. So it’s hard to say……

Who knows what will happen with Pelini….but I will say that any school that can win 9 games a year with that crazy sob has a pretty good pedigree. In the mid to long term I have little doubt that NEB will be better in football than MO for one very simple reason: their fans expect and demand that it be so. NEB football is that huge in that state.

Kind of weak of you to claim that this was a one year thing for Missouri considering Missouri has 4 division titles in 7 years with win totals of 12, 10, 10, and 11 (maybe 12). 9 bowls in 11 years. Several top 20 finishes, including a top 4 finish and maybe another top 5 finish this year. I mean, we’re piling up more data points than just this year if you’re at all paying attention.

Nebraska didn’t have any conference games in the south back when they were in the Big8, and they were even more dominant then than they are now. Yes, football has changed a little and so have demographics, but not that much since the mid-90’s when Nebraska was winning national titles.

I remember reading some UNL boards where they recalled that recruiting was a challenge even under Osborne, but they still won with the system that they had. Oregon has shown that you can get in to the national title conversation despite very poor local recruiting grounds & a small state population if you have an innovative scheme, lots of money, and can attract recruits by being perceived as cool; and what UNL doesn’t lack is a very devoted fanbase willing to shower tons of money on Big Red.

As for Mizzou, they are in a similar situation to Minny, Wisconsin, RU, and UMD. RU has a little more in-state population. RU and UMD have better local recruiting grounds (while the other 3 have poor local recruiting grounds). Wisconsin has more money. All are pretty good in basketball besides RU. Right now, Mizzou is performing close to the level of Wisconsin (though no conference titles, which Bucky has acheived). However, unlike Wisconsin, all of Mizzou’s success has come under one coach. If Mizzou continues to be successful, they can be spoken of in the same breath as Wisconsin. I don’t see any of these schools becoming kings, however.

What people always suffer from is recency bias; they see an upwards trend and think that that will continue forever. Likewise, they see a downward trend, and think that that will keep going forever. Those people lose money in the stock market. Maybe UNL will fall from king status due to their poor local recruiting grounds, but Mizzou’s isn’t really much better, and it will take several generations before Mizzou’s brand matches UNL’s.

As for the idea that being in the SEC will improve your recruiting, don’t kid yourself. Arkansas is even closer to the hotbeds of recruiting in the south and have been in the SEC even longer and they are still poor in recruiting.

Could be. I honestly don’t know what Nebraska’s problem is. They seem to be in decline, and their recruiting hasn’t been very good lately. They do have a lot of money.

I don’t think comparing Missouri to Rutgers or Maryland makes much sense as Missouri at least has a fairly large fanbase, with average attendance ranking in the top 25 most years, and apparel sales ranking in the top 20, where as Maryland and Rutgers rank 30 or 40 spots below that. Mizzou is also working on a $200M facilities upgrade and should have an 80k seat stadium soon.

Wisconsin is a fair comparison, as far as where Missouri would like to be. I would consider Wisconsin a “prince” at this point and I think that’s probably Missouri’s ceiling, if they can keep their current momentum going.

Nebraska may turn it around, but they do have geography going against them. One has to wonder how much of their previous success just came down to Tom Osborne. He was a hell of a coach, and they just haven’t been the same since he left.

I think prince status for MO would have been more easily achieved in the Big 10.

Hard to see MO finshing even or on top of Tenn, Fla., Bama, Aub,, Georgia, A&M
,and GT in most years. SC lives in a much more fertile recruiting neighborhood. Mid to long term I see MO right in there with Ark, Ky, Miss St., Ole Miss, esp. since MO is something of an outlier in the league. You should be able to handle Vandy most of the time.

RU’s and UMD’s athletic departments actually bring in more money than Mizzou’s. Then again, they also both have heavy subsidies. Still, take away the subsidies, and UMD still matches Mizzou. Minny is higher than all 3 and Wisconsin is even higher still:

mushroom, your claim that Mizzou won’t compete in the SEC seems a little outdated considerign Mizzou won the SEC East this year.

Richard, Mizzou’s revenue numbers were hurt badly by the Big 12 withholding $14M in conference payouts. Starting next year Mizzou should get over $30M from the SEC, compared with around $14M from the Big 12 before 2011, and $0 in 2011.

Also, Mizzou is expanding stadium capacity from 71k to 80k, with about 5k in additional premium seats being added, so that should help. Also, donations have been up sharply.

Add all of that up and Mizzou’s revenue should jump by a good $20M per year if not more compared to where they were in 2010, and $34M or more compared to 2011.

To put it another way, it very much looks like Missouri will jump from around 35th place in revenue to somewhere around 18th place.

Rutgers and Maryland will make jumps too for joining the B1G, but considering their ticket sales, apparel sales etc rank so far behind Missouri I just don’t see those schools passing them unless they start to get huge amounts of big money donations.

Richard, again, looking at the numbers you posted, those 2012 numbers in USAToday are around $10M less than the previous year, and that’s in spite of attendance and donations that were well above average, so I think it’s safe to assume that the $14M Big 12 withholding was counted here. The year before Misssouri had ranked in the 30s, not the 50s like here. Add the $14M back and Missouri moves to 41st place just ahead of Rutgers. Add in the $35M that they’ll be getting from the SEC in a year or two and Mizzou would be in the top 25, although by then a lot of other schools will also get similar boosts, so let’s say high 20s. And then if Mizzou can pull together another $5M or so per year from increased premium seating sales, ticket sales, donations, etc they could maybe get into the top 25 in revenue. I think this is fairly likely. Probably best case 20th place, worst case 30th place in 2015.

mushroom, as far as long term, it’s really hard to guess. It think Mizzou will be up and down, probably averaging around 8.5 wins per season. They’ll have some 5 win seasons and some 12 win seasons and a lot of 8 and 9 win seasons. Would that rank enough for them to be a prince? I guess yes if they make the new Big 6 bowls (Sugar, Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Peach) every few years. I think regular appearances in those constitutes Prince status.

Long Term SEC I see

High Kings:

Alabama
LSU
Florida

Low Kings:

Auburn
Georgia

Princes:

Tennessee (former low King, demoted to Prince)
Texas A&M
Missouri (maybe, we’ll see what happens after Pinkel)
South Carolina (maybe, we’ll see what happens after Spurrier)

Kentucky, Vandy, Ole Miss, MSU, Arky are below Prince. Yes, Missouri and South Carolina could drop back down to this level as they are “new money” and will need to replace their coaches relatively soon.

And yes, that’s a lot of Kings and Princes, but the SEC is pretty damn good.

I hate doing the multiple posts in a row thing, wish I could go back and add to the previous post, but…

Richard, I clicked around on your link and you can actually go into the numbers and look at the specifics of the numbers and compare them to previous years.

Under “rights/licenses”, which I take to mean TV money from the conference, Missouri has a steady diet of pretty healthy numbers coming in, and then suddenly has an $11M drop in 2012. This would almost half to be money withheld by the Big 12 for the conference move.

Fair enough. Iowa has as much of a chance as Missouri at Princehood I suppose. Neither is there yet. Iowa seems to be trending down and Missouri up, but who’s to say what the next few years will bring and if you expand it out to 12 years instead of 7 then Iowa does look better.

What Nebraska and Iowa have are proven football fan bases that have stuck with the team even in down periods at an extremely high level (the former having sold out every game for 50 years straight). Those types of programs (particularly at Nebraska’s level) are significantly harder to find than the performance on-the-field that Missouri has had the past decade. That’s not meant to be a specific knock on Mizzou, as my own alma mater of Illinois and plenty of other schools have very fairweather football fans in large population states. Illini fans won’t show up unless we’re contending for the Rose Bowl. It’s just that Andy is severely undercounting how hard it is to find schools with loyal fan bases like Nebraska and Iowa that still bring audiences when they’re down while overvaluing what a school looks like when it’s playing at its very peak (which isn’t sustainable for even the very best king programs). As a result, when he applies that methodology (slightly undervaluing Nebraska’s long-term off-the-field metrics while slightly overvaluing Mizzou’s on-the-field metrics), that makes him look at the difference between Nebraska and Missouri seem much closer than it was in conference realignment reality.

As evidence of Frank’s point:
This season, Nebraska was mediocre (by their standards) again while Mizzou won their division. here are their regular season national TV ratings (so no ESPNU games for either school):

@ Frank, Iowa and Nebraska haven’t had hard times. Missouri went to 2 bowls in 19 years from 1984-2002. Those are hard times. And Missouri still averaged in the high 40ks throughout, which is more than Illinois averaged now. During any kind of relatively good times Missouri has averaged in the 60k range. Yes Nebraska’s attendance has been much better, but it hasn’t been tested by any kind of hard times of the magnitude of Missouri.

@ Richard, comparing games on ABC to games on ESPN is apples to oranges. ABC typically gets much stronger ratings. Over the air gets more viewers than cable. CBS made the mistake of not putting the East champs over the air this year. That hurt Mizzou’s average. And yet they still finished the season ranked #8 in tv ratings.

I think Pitt was pretty good back then as well……don’t they claim like 8 NCs? I think until 1960 or so Pitt dominated the PSU-Pitt competition……last time pitt was seriously good was in the Dorsett era….

Pitt, Illinois, and Cal in the early part of the 20th century, Minny from the 30’s through mid-century, and MSU mid-century could be considered former kings. Tennessee as well, if you don’t consider them a king any more.

For some context, Nebraska’s Kings status stems largely from having 40 consecutive winning seasons from 1962-2002, just as CFB and TV began its marriage. Throw in memorable games with Oklahoma, yearly New Years bowl games in a 3 channel era, some Heisman winners, legendary games (wins or losses), and you get the makings of a King.

If Mizzou, or any other school for that matter, duplicates that, Kings status will be earned. But it’s far more difficult now, as tv channel fragmentation, numerous bowl games, less scholarships, NCAA investigators, makes it far more challenging to climb and maintain that level of success. It surely can be done, but its hard.

Miami is a great example. 5 national titles in 20 years, mixed in with periods of bad play and NCAA punishment, and they still don’t consistently draw well in their stadium. But they are probably still a King, and definitely on the upswing.

The moratorium was until Missouri was a contender for the national championship. Seeing as how Missouri would have been in the national championship game had they not relinquished their lead over Auburn at the end of the 3rd quarter of the SEC title game, I guess that broke the spell. But if people want to restore it feel free.

I didn’t even bring up Missouri. Just Nebraska. Others brought up Missouri, which is an invitation to the topic as far as I’m concerned.

FWIW for a long time I’ve said that I’m fine with this board not talking about Missouri and for the most part I’m not going to bring up Missouri on my own. But since this board has had a history of Missouri bashing I come in and bring facts as necessary when it happens.

You’re always the one who brings up Missouri and constantly bashing Rutgers & Maryland at every opportunity. It’s clear your severely butt hurt over the B10’s preference of going after East Coast universities, where the B10 needed more exposure, instead of Missouri. Which is a region the B10 pretty much already had with the addition of Nebraska…

Most people here even agree with you that Missouri is a natural fit for the B10. IMO it all boils down to the B10 desired more control over the very valuable East Coast (taking that control away from the ACC) than add another Midwestern school.

I don’t bash Maryland. I do bash Rutgers a lot, but they deserve it. 95% of the time I talk about Missouri it’s because somebody says something that’s completely false about them. Which you just did.

For the one millionth time: The B1G did not “choose” to expand eastward instead of taking Missouri. Not because they wanted the east coast. Not for any reason. It did not happen. That’s clearly, obviously true.

Here is what obviously, undeniably happened:

1. The B1G announced they were expanding.

2. Missouri was interested.

3. So were Nebraska and Kansas.

4. The Pac 12 tried to take pretty much the entire Big 12 South plus Colorado.

5. The B1G chose to take Nebraska and the Pac 12 took Colorado.

6. Things happened with Texas, Texas A&M, and Baylor that blew up the rest of the Pac 12 expansion.

7. The B1G decided to stay at 12, thus locking out Missouri and Kansas.

8. Texas A&M and Missouri still wanted to leave the Big 12. (Oklahoma and Kansas did too)

9. The B1G and Pac 12 agreed to a partnership and said they would both stay at 12 and form a 24 school alliance.

10. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State tried to join the Pac 12 but were voted down.

11. A&M announced it was going to the SEC.

12. The SEC invited Missouri. Missouri debated whether or not to join for over a month. Several board of directors meetings were called. The B1G was contacted and was asked if they were willing to expand immediately. They were not. The SEC said it was now or never for Missouri, so Missouri joined the SEC.

13. The Pac 12 cancelled the B1G/Pac 12 partnership before it even started. This was supposed to be the alternative both leagues came up with for expansion.

14. Notre Dame, the B1G’s top target for expansion, joined the ACC as a partial member.

15. With no Pac 12 partnership and no reason to wait on Notre Dame, the B1G looked into expansion, apparently contacting schools like Texas, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia, but none agreed to join.

16. Depending on who you believe, they also contacted Missouri at this point. But that very well may be false. But in any case, Missouri was very much not available having just joined the SEC and thus was not an option and could not have been passed over in any way.

17. With Missouri off the table and most of the rest saying no or not being AAU schools, the B1G really only had 3 viable AAU options to choose from: Maryland, Rutgers, and Kansas. They went with Maryland and Rutgers.

18. Frankthetank commenters began repeating the falsehood that Rutgers was chosen over Missouri, and continue repeating it to this day.

Andy, there’s abundant evidence that the Big Ten coveted the east and southeast (many public statements from Delany, the presidents and ADs), although they considered other options as well.

As I mentioned upthread, people consider many things that they eventually decide against. The “expand east/southeast” option was the winner.

Obviously, some options were foreclosed due to the lack of willing partners (e.g., Notre Dame). But of course, they always had the option to do nothing.

With no Pac 12 partnership and no reason to wait on Notre Dame, the B1G looked into expansion, apparently contacting schools like Texas, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia, but none agreed to join.

You’re putting a lot of stock in apparently, but taking your scenario at its word, three out of the four schools they contacted were to the east/southeast, which certainly is consistent with the strategy they eventually adopted.

But “contacting” someone is the weakest form of evaluation. If we were to discover that the Big Ten “contacted” Syracuse, I would not say that the Big Ten wanted Syracuse. You can “contact” anyone. Contact is cheap.

The Big 10 has been looking at Rutgers for 20 years. Rutgers may be fool’s gold, but it has always been someone the Big 10 has been interested in despite their lack of athletic success. With 4 kings, the Big 10 was better positioned to take a chance on Rutgers than the Big 12 or ACC.

Lots of mainstream media in the 90s that the Big 10, after being turned down by Notre Dame, was looking at Missouri, Kansas AND Rutgers.

You may not like the decision, but its clear the Big 10 has seen Rutgers as potentially valuable for a long time.

marc and bullet. not sure what your point is. yes, the b1g looked at eastern schools. how does that mean rutgers was chosen over missouri? obviously missouri wasn’t available when rutgers was chosen. that’s a simple verifiable fact that trumps everything you’re saying.

Delaney promised the Big XII commish he’d only take 1 Big XII team when they notified him they were going to steal Nebraska, that is when the B10 turned down Missouri. If the B10 wanted Missouri bad enough (they didn’t) they’d have added Nebraska, Missouri & Rutgers all together.

All I did as post a link to a message board where Husker fans are lamenting joining the B1G. I didn’t bring up this argument. They did. But if they want to have it again, I’m always willing, because I always win.

Bullcrap. You posted a link to a Nebraska board and then added: “I guess the B1G should have taken Missouri after all. Better geographic fit, better football win % over the last 10 years, top 25 basketball program, oh, and AAU academics. Oh well. Enjoy your corn.”

B*****p. You posted a link to a Nebraska board and then added: “I guess the B1G should have taken Missouri after all. Better geographic fit, better football win % over the last 10 years, top 25 basketball program, oh, and AAU academics. Oh well. Enjoy your corn.”

All I did as post a link to a message board where Husker fans are lamenting joining the B1G. I didn’t bring up this argument. They did. But if they want to have it again, I’m always willing, because I always win.

In your own mind.

You aren’t the only intelligent person here. We do have minds of our own, and there are other ways of evaluating the evidence than your preferred way.

Not that there are any excuses . . . but I suspect the Alabama team is re-living the Auburn game in their heads. In their minds, they’re one absurd, once-in-a-lifetime FG return away from playing for a third consecutive NC. Last night’s game was a consolation bowl for them, and they played like it.

Typical bowls. Big 12 has had 4 games with 15-25 point spreads. Favorite won one of the 4 and lost by at least 2 TDs in the 3 losses.

The Tech game surprised me. After 5 straight losses I didn’t think they had it in them. UCF winning was the least surprise. Baylor hasn’t been there much and was likely to be happy just to go to a big bowl and overlooking UCF. UT or OU pulling the upset wasn’t something I expected, but neither would have been that big a surprise.

Motivation in bowls is so different from team to team and so different from the regular season.

Georgia wasn’t the same team as all season. They were very flat. It wasn’t just the loss of Aaron Murray or Todd Gurley seemingly at about 75%. Just no fire in their play. This Georgia team made lots of mistakes, but always gave 110%. But not on NYD.

Oklahoma looked far more fired up than I had seen them all season. Even more so than for Oklahoma St.

Duke came out like a rocket in the first half and put together a monstrous first half on both sides of the ball.

Texas A&M just didn’t look like they were into the game; the body language was terrible on the sidelines in almost every sideline camera shot I saw on TV. Some of the sideline shots just had the team looking like they weren’t that interested.

Obviously, the second half was a completely different story. They realized they were getting embarrassed and got their heads in the game quick.

I’m pulling for tOSU, but I have a feeling that Clemson will be ready to play. I know the defense has not faced the caliber of receiver that is Sammy Watkins, but I think you guys can keep him contained. Urban has not inspired a ton of confidence with his remarks since the BIG championship game, which is concerning, but what are you gonna do.

Have to say I’m less impressed than I thought I’d be with Urban M. after watching OSU these past two years. It seemed to me that the offensive gameplan was less than great tongiht……..no screens? no short slants into the middle? no TE in the middle? Just seemed like he really let Clemson get away with having 8-9 in the box a lot. Also, where is the toughness—seemed like the OL couldn’t establish themselves. And that didn’t look like OSU LBs out there……..

Only good thing for OSU is Braxton M. will likely be back……while he is a very good college QB, it seems to me that he will almost certainly be a flop as a pro QB. As far as his pro prospects go, he looks like a poor man’s Vince Young.

As to the game……Downtown Philly Brown….what a bonehead play on his part. …in all likelihood lost the game for them. Really looked like a bs selfish play on his part.

Other observation about OSU is that they really need some stud WRs…..I assume a couple are in the pipeline?

Eh? They scored a TD on a TE streaking down the middle (and would have had another TD on a TE down the middle if BM had connected). They don’t call that often, though. Probably should have run the wheel route with the RB more. Clemson was blowing their coverage on that all night. Actually, Clemson was blowing their coverage all over the field all night. The game was definitely there for the taking, but it’s hard to win while committing 4 turnovers.

If I’m BM, I’d turn pro. With the punishment that he takes, he’ll have as short a shelf-life as most running backs; might as well get paid for getting beat-up or learn as a backup. Also, with so much read-option being run in the NFL now, I’m certain some team will pick him.

Amazing how tribal (conference oriented) College Football has become in the BCS era. It would have been nary unthinkable for me to root for MSU much less OSU against ANYONE pre-2000. Now I find myself leaping out of my chair (and spilling my precious Backwoods Bastard beer) when MSU scores….and whole heartedly rooting for OSU tonight. It’s a bit surreal.
Don’t know who to root for in the other OSU game. Since I’ve always felt Mizzou should have been in the B1G, I lean toward them, but they have, after all, forsaken Winterfell for House Lannister.

I think the ‘circle the wagons’ mentality comes from the fact that the Big Ten’s national perception is so bad. I have no doubt that if Michigan and OSU were contending year in/year out for NC’s like LSU/Bama I would feel the same way.

The weird thing for me is that the recent era has also driven me to pay less attention to other leagues. I used to care a lot more about intersectional OOC games and rivalry games around the country. But now I really only worry about those games if they impact my team or another B10 team in the BCS. Otherwise, who wins means less to me than it used to and I don’t feel compelled to watch.

Maybe it’s just the media hate for the B10 versus the love for the SEC (makes me avoid a lot of CFB coverage). Or maybe it’s the SEC playing on CBS and ND on NBC. Or maybe it’s all the other changes that have come with the BCS. I know the recent run of SEC titles has taken a lot of the enjoyment out of CFB for me.

GreatLakeState,
It’s funny you mentioned that because that is why I wrote my post to BuckeyeBeau. I’m a BIg fan, a diehard fan (three schools), but I never would have felt the need to voice my support before. And, I don’t know if that is a good thing or a bad thing for the sport and college athletics. I guess time will tell…

PPP’s annual poll about the NFL finds that voters across party lines can agree on one thing- the Cowboys are not ‘America’s Team.’ Just 23% think they deserve that label, to 60% who disagree. And this is one sentiment that doesn’t divide along political lines- 63% of independents, 61% of Republicans, and 57% of Democrats say they don’t consider the Cowboys to be America’s team.

In fact the designation the Cowboys do win out for is America’s least favorite team. 23% say the Cowboys are their least favorite team with no one else coming particularly close- the Bears get 13%, Patriots 9%, Broncos 8%, Steelers 6%, and Giants 5%.

When it comes to Americans’ favorite team this year it appears there’s quite a bit of bandwagonism. The Broncos come out on top with 14% to 12% for the Cowboys, 11% Packers, 10% Bears, 8% Patriots and Steelers, 5% Giants, and 4% Saints and 49ers. When we did this same poll in 2011 the Packers were undefeated and came out way ahead of the pack with 22% naming them as their favorite team so we’ve found some inclination in the past for respondents to go with the hot hand.

Heck, the Cowboys aren’t even the Metroplex’s team. I have some friends in DFW who can’t stand Jerry Jones (just like Dan Snyder is despised in D.C., albeit for different reasons), and were it not for Cowboys Stadium securing all sorts of events for the area (e.g., this year’s Final Four, an upcoming CFB title game, a Super Bowl, an NBA all-star game), they would deem him worthless. Even with their early postseason exits the past two years, the Rangers clearly have stolen much of the Cowboys’ thunder; the Mavericks did likewise with their 2011 NBA title, though they couldn’t sustain such success; and the Stars appear back on their feet (though they’d need to make a serious Stanley Cup run to be the factor they were in 1999 and 2000). There have long been an array of Cowboys fans who have never set foot in Texas, and couldn’t identify a single member of the Rangers, Mavs or Stars.

I attended a game in Dallas this year. Dallas fans did the strangest thing I’ve ever seen. On big downs for the Dallas offense, Cowboy fans would stand up and cheer. It caused issues for the Dallas offense as Romo had to repeat a couple of his calls to players who couldn’t hear them.

No. This year is Exhibit A for why only conference champs should be in the playoffs. FSU v. Stanford or MSU in one semi-final and Auburn v. MSU or Stanford in the other. Baylor would have been excluded, as it proved it should have been. Ditto for Alabama and tOSU.

So far, some of these bowl results further prove the whole BS with the BCS—AND—that the new 4 team “playoff” will be just as big of a farce!!

I wouldn’t say they prove it. All these results show is what we already knew: favorites sometimes lose. Whether you have a 4-team playoff or a 64-team playoff, sometimes the team that “should win,” won’t win.

Could easily cut the bowls in half. This would be way more rewarding to the kids, the fans, and the schools— the schools are losing money sending teams/bands/etc to these crap bowls.

It’s hard for me to see how your proposal would be more rewarding to the kids, fans and schools. As far as I can tell, most players would prefer to attend a bowl, even a lower-tier bowl. Fans generally will tune in to watch their team, regardless of which bowl they’re in. It’s true that the schools often lose money, but one is putting a gun to their head: they choose to go. If the schools didn’t want to be there, or if the fans stopped watching, those bowls wouldn’t exist.

“So far, some of these bowl results further prove the whole BS with the BCS—AND—that the new 4 team “playoff” will be just as big of a farce!!”

That’s because any postseason in football is an exhibition at best. The long break assures that these teams aren’t what they were in early December. The small number of regular season games assures that that nobody definitively knows which teams are the best. Most importantly, single game results aren’t necessarily indicative of team quality but people insist on using them that way (upsets, bad match-ups, extenuating circumstances, etc).

“Neither Oklahoma, nor UCF would even be within a whisper of being in the 4 team play-in… But both the teams that were beaten likely would have been in—”

If every team that’s within a 17 point spread of those above it has to get in, you’re asking for a huge playoff. On any given Saturday, any team can win. That’s why they ask teams to prove it during the regular season first. It’s not a guarantee of picking the right teams, but it does help to weed out the undeserving.

“I love the bowl games—except for all the toilet bowls with empty or half-empty stands (what a GI-NORMOUS waste)”

The bowls don’t exist just to fill seats. ESPN has air time to fill and cities want more tourists. They’d love to have sell outs, but they’ll take 20,000 extra visitors.

“Could easily cut the bowls in half.”

Sure. We could cut back to 4 or 5. But they make money for the people that matter, so they aren’t going anywhere.

“This would be way more rewarding to the kids, the fans, and the schools”

1. That’s largely untrue or greatly exaggerated. Conferences pool bowl money and share expenses in different ways, and everybody cooks their books differently. It makes figuring out the bottom line very difficult.
2. Are you giving any value to the PR (3.5 hours of advertising for the school)? What about to all the extra practices for the team?
3. Schools don’t have to send as many people as they do. It’s their choice.

“Gimme a 8 team bracket with 2 play-in games—meaning 10 total teams have an opportunity at determining a champion ON THE FIELD (thank you)…”

UCF wouldn’t have made that playoff either. OU might have missed it too. Thus, you haven’t fixed the problem you started off bitching about.

“Seed all 10 teams.”

How are they selected? How are they seeded? How is this any different from the BCS or the CFP except for size and game location?

“Done! We get a real playoff, no more of this speculation of who is better than who by chatter… Play it out…”

How is that any more “real” than a 4 team playoff or a 2 team playoff? It’s larger, but you give no explanation of how it’s more “real.”

“ALL other levels of college football have playoffs that work”

I-A isn’t the same as the other levels. I-A is much more time consuming and much harder on the body to play.

“That’s because any postseason in football is an exhibition at best. The long break assures that these teams aren’t what they were in early December. The small number of regular season games assures that that nobody definitively knows which teams are the best. Most importantly, single game results aren’t necessarily indicative of team quality but people insist on using them that way (upsets, bad match-ups, extenuating circumstances, etc).”

Wholeheartedly agree. People used to understand that better.

I’ll disagree on the money. All but the BCS bowls and a 3 or 4 others lose money for the conferences who send teams with all the ticket guarantees and expenses.

How much does a 3.5 hour commercial on ESPN cost? Every bowl team is getting that for free. What is the value of having happy alumni and fans? What about coming to visit alumni in other parts of the country? Exposure to new pools of future students and athletes?

In addition, I was talking about the total bottom line. The BCS games and top bowls provide a lot of profit to cover the losses at smaller bowls. As bowl payouts shrink, so do the mandatory ticket sales and the ticket price. And don’t forget, I clearly specified that schools spend more than they need to. You don’t get to send 100 extra people and then complain about the total cost.

Show me that the conferences actually lose money overall on bowls when only counting mandatory expenses and valuing the PR of a bowl at more than $0.

Took me a while to figure out it was a Tiger. But my biggest objection is the jersey. Will they really sell more of those than the black? Will they sell very many of those at all? Oregon ugly.

Now Texas Tech I had to read on the internet what their helmet was. Apparently its a 3D image of their masked rider on his horse. It isn’t distinguishable on TV. So that tops modern art.

I’m assuming this isn’t trouble with the TV coloring. People who watched on TV were convinced Tennessee was wearing blue this year instead of their traditional creamsicle. But I can verify from seeing them in person it was an even uglier grey. Clemson looks red on TV, but I have a Clemson friend who tells me they still wear orange.

Can anyone explain why digital (or cable) TV has trouble with certain colors? I know its not just my set because I’ve heard the Clemson and Tennessee color issues from others and seen it on other TVs. Clemson used to look orange on TV.

I really dislike the way they call interference (or don’t) now. You almost have to mug the receiver to get called. So they try to do it and hide it every time. They grab the arms and the jersey too (although that is more likely to get called). Its become a totally discretionary rule with no rhyme or reason.

Well had OSU won tonight, I would have given the BIG a favorable nod this bowl season. On the other hand, all BIG teams, minus Michigan, came to play & I credit Iowa, Wisky and Duke (ACC) for bringing down the SEC hype and certainly giving OU more than they needed to upset Bama, which is so far the game of the bowl season. But, the SEC has won most of their games in the end as Mizzou took care of OkSt tonight.

Clemson has come a long ways since their implosion and beyond against WVa. Not to take any credit away from Clemson, OSU was just too battered and bruised – truly key injuries, including Miller throughout the game. It would have been nice to see a healthy OSU. I think OSU wins if healthy – the Spence disaster was the most significant loss then Bosa losing full strength during the game. I’m not sure Roby does enough for the OSU secondary, but a healthy Bosa and an available Spence slows Clemson’s attack down enough for a Buckeye win.

I have no idea who will win between FSU-Auburn, despite the SEC’s strength being diminished some this bowl season – most of their teams, esp Auburn, have intangibles, luck and the athletes to adjust to most opponents – even the FSU steamroller.

As for next year’s BIG, looking good gentlemen, looking good. I really think the league will breakout next year, and hopefully the down cycle is done. I’m going to call it now, Michigan will return to prominence, so will Nebraska, as for the BIG champ – I’m going with Nebraska upsetting MSU or Michigan. OSU will have 3 losses next year : ).

Yesterday wasn’t a good argument for a playoff starting in January. Both games were pretty sloppy. Interesting, but sloppy. Missouri’s Franklin, who is a really good QB, was on a pace to throw 52 incompletions at the end of the 1st quarter (4/17/1int). Ended up 15/40/1. Okie St. QB was 33/57/2 and a fumble. Clemson and Ohio St. just looked like a lot of sloppy play whenever I switched over there. There was a safety, bunch of missed extra points, 6 turnovers.

Nebraska doesn’t have the talent to win the league, and unlike Dantonio, Pelini hasn’t shown that he can turn a collection of 3-star recruits in to a conference title winner.

Hoke definitely has recruited talent to UM, but they’ve underacheived.
OSU, UM, and MSU could be pretty darn good, as in top-10 good, next year. But they might not reach those heights either. Wisconsin in Anderson’s 2nd year could join them. So the very best the B10 could do is 4 top 10 teams (which would be insanely good). 1 top 10 team and only 2 top 20 teams is also a possibility, however.

@Richard – IMHO, talent and development isn’t Pelini’s problem. Most of the analysts I’ve seen rate Nebraska’s overall talent behind Ohio St and Michigan but above the rest. His major problem is that his roster management has been horrible. For what ever reason Pelini stops recruiting positions resulting in a need to completely restock positions on the fly. For example:

-Only 4 DTs played in 2011 with two suffering season ending injuries and one injured most of the year. Instead of pulling red shirts he moved a 240 lb DE inside to tackle.

-The two deep at LB for 2012 had a transfer coming off an injury, a sophomore, and four freshman. Both DT and DE had two freshman on the two deep.

-Next year Nebraska is going to be short on corners without some JUCO help.

I haven’t noticed an increase in recruiting losses. I would be very surprised if Nebraska couldn’t fill a spot they had a need for. Nebraska, like most major schools, have plan B players that they have to turn away if plan A commits. Maybe forget isn’t the right word. Maybe I should have said Pelini lowers the priority on positions for too long. Let me illustrate the problem with linebackers:

Not getting a player in 2009 isn’t a huge problem after taking so many in 2008. After missing out in 2009, Nebraska needed a HS player or two to go with the 2 years to play 2 JUCO. In 2011, the LB position is dominated by upper classman but still only one HS player. 2012 is the “oh crap” year as all the starters that graduate that fall are seniors. 2013 is another “oh crap” year due to the lack of depth.

“Hm. OSU will have to rebuilt virtually their entire O-Line next year.”

Yes, 4 of 5 OL starters graduate and we lose Hyde. But we keep Miller, have several young WRs that should be good, have experienced TEs, and have some good backup OL. I expect the running game to drop off some, but the passing game should improve.

We also have to rebuild our back 4 on defense and lose Shazier. But the front 4 is back intact, we have several young LBs that should be good and many of our “backup” DBs started multiple games this year or played significant minutes. The pass D can’t get much worse, and a more experienced DL may mean a better pass rush.

“Contending for the national title is probably out, then.”

Probably, but the schedule isn’t a killer:

@Navy
VT
Kent St
BYE
UC
@UMD
BYE
RU
@PSU
IL
@MSU
@MN
IN
MI

The OOC schedule is better than 2013’s, but VT isn’t elite. The crossovers are IL and MN. The toughest game looks to be @MSU, but MSU also loses some key pieces. There’s no telling how good teams will be by next November (development, injuries and other attrition, etc). Obviously the CCG would also be a tough game.

I’m not saying OSU would be an elite team, but thye might be able to put together a good record again.

Yeah, I think double-digit wins is very likely, but I still believe that most games are won in the trenches (otherwise, you need an elite, as in Cam Newton or RGIII elite, QB to contend for the national title). There are only so many Houdini acts that BM can pull.

How are NW fans feeling about 2014? Was 2013 just a perfect storm of bad things (injuries, etc) and the team will bounce back to 10 wins or so? Or was 2013 supposed to be the year and NW was supposed to slide back in 2014?

I think a slight majority are in a negative/bad mood now and think that we’re a 6-6 team at best going forward with Fitz in charge and MCall calling plays. I’m in the other camp that is expecting an 8-4 season (though anything between 6-6 and 10-2 would not shock me).

If you look at the difference between the 9-3 2012 and 5-7 2013 seasons, there were 4 main reasons for the 4 extra losses:
1. a tougher schedule (OSU and Wisconsin in place of IU & PSU).
2. injuries (least injured in the B10 in 2012; most injured, I believe, in the B10 in 2013).
3. plain bad luck (2 OT losses, one after a tie on a FG with no time left where offsides wasn’t called on UM, and that game-winning Hail Mary vs. UNL).
4. O-Line was worse.

Only the last was something that NU can control.

A lot of folks thought that 2013 was suppose to be the year because we had all our big-threat skill players returning, but what almost all NU fans (including me) discounted was that the O-Line suffered heavy losses and had to be rebuilt.

In 2014, the schedule will be easier (PSU and PU replace OSU & MSU; ND does come on the schedule, but the Irish weren’t as good as OSU or MSU according to Sagarin this year). That’s one extra win there.

The whole O-Line returns this time, and they should be better with more familiarity with each other. We didn’t really lose much to graduation that we can’t replace. Colter is gone, but Siemian is back and Alviti is a highly touted 4-star QB. If we rotate QB’s again, Alviti can easily step in to Colter’s role. His arm certainly can’t be any weaker. Venric Mark should receive the medical redshirt and be back as well.

With average amounts of luck and injuries, 8-4 is definitely reasonable (10-2 if awesome luck and no injuries; 6-6 with terrible luck and big chunks of our team being injured again), though I don’t see NU winning our division (well, obviously, we wouldn’t by going 8-4). But also because Wisconsin and UNL have patsy cross-overs and we can’t seem to solve Bucky’s offensive style.

What MSU and Mizzou did this year after the 2012 seasons that they had provides rays of hope for NU.
MSU had awful luck (and dreadful QB play & a bunch of drops by their receivers) in 2012. Otherwise, they were essentially the same team, and they improved by 5 wins. Mizzou had a stupid amount of injuries in 2012. Despite calls for change, Pinkel changed virtually nothing, and they improved by 6 wins.

“Well had OSU won tonight, I would have given the BIG a favorable nod this bowl season.”

Really? What happened to this?

January 1, 2014 at 3:20 pm

Anyways, BIG, yet again, goes down with a losing bowl record.

I’m out.

“But, the SEC has won most of their games in the end as Mizzou took care of OkSt tonight.”

Of course they did. They were favored in most of their games, just like the P12 was, because their commissioner doesn’t try to put together the toughest bowl schedule possible..

Remember this?

December 21, 2013 at 2:54 pm

I’m sure it’s been said already, but damn did the Pac12 get a mostly chump easy bowl schedule.

If you look above, you’ll see the SEC was favored in 6 of 7 games and the P12 in all 9 of their games. The B10 was favored in 2. It’s because we always play the best teams Delany can get, usually in their home territory. The current bowl deal doesn’t include any ACC foes, has the B10 playing higher seeds from the B12, and includes only the 1 MAC game as a non-AQ. The SEC’s current lineup plays 1 non-AQ, 1 AAC and 3 ACC teams. The P12’s includes 3 non-AQs and 1 ACC foe.

Things will be a little different next year. The P12 will play only 1 non-AQ, 1 ACC team and 3 B10 teams. The B10 using tiers for bowl placement will lead to some odd games (#6 playing where #4 should sort of things), but maybe they’ll try to make smart pairings when possible.

“Clemson has come a long ways since their implosion and beyond against WVa. Not to take any credit away from Clemson, OSU was just too battered and bruised – truly key injuries, including Miller throughout the game. It would have been nice to see a healthy OSU. I think OSU wins if healthy – the Spence disaster was the most significant loss then Bosa losing full strength during the game. I’m not sure Roby does enough for the OSU secondary, but a healthy Bosa and an available Spence slows Clemson’s attack down enough for a Buckeye win.”

And yet previously you said this:

December 27, 2013 at 6:09 pm

Every year it’s a set of different excuses, enough with em. When something becomes consistent, it’s beyond mental and physical – it’s fact.

Why is it valid analysis when you do it and excuses if someone else says it?

“As for next year’s BIG, looking good gentlemen, looking good. I really think the league will breakout next year, and hopefully the down cycle is done. I’m going to call it now, Michigan will return to prominence, so will Nebraska, as for the BIG champ – I’m going with Nebraska upsetting MSU or Michigan. OSU will have 3 losses next year : ).”

Really?

December 28, 2013 at 11:58 pm

The BIG has rapidly become an average football conference filled with mostly bad coaches & there is very little upside due to close-minded, profit driven leadership. Yet too many hail Delany as a genius due to the money he helps the conference earn. Culture change is absolutely needed in the BIG, change that identifies the need for signature wins, esp in football and basketball – the latter being on the cusp of greatness. But football looks truly gloomy. It’s also about time states in the BIG region specialize prep football for safety and year round play, or the gap will grow larger.

A culture change happened in a week? That’s impressive, even for Delany.

To be fair, the SEC does play a tough bowl schedule contractually on paper. Their bowl tie-ins up to this last year before the CFP had the top non-BCS selections from the Big Ten (Capital One), Big 12 (Cotton) and ACC (Chick-fil-A) along with the next highest Big Ten selection (Outback). That’s honestly the toughest bowl lineup on paper, so I’ll give the SEC credit for usually handling it well. The Big Ten also generally plays higher selections (which usually means tougher opponents) from other conferences, while the Big 12 is relatively even. It’s really the Pac-12 and ACC that have had weaker bowl tie-ins.

“To be fair, the SEC does play a tough bowl schedule contractually on paper.”

Yes and no. They play mostly AQs, and often play up in seeds (#3/4 vs B12 #2 in the Cotton, for example). But they play CUSA and the AAC once each versus just the 1 MAC game for the B10. They also play the ACC 3 times versus none for the B10. Most importantly, they never leave really their own footprint with the Cotton being their longest trip. Plus, they have 14 teams so playing up against the 10 team B12 isn’t as bad as it sounds.

“Their bowl tie-ins up to this last year before the CFP had the top non-BCS selections from the Big Ten (Capital One), Big 12 (Cotton) and ACC (Chick-fil-A) along with the next highest Big Ten selection (Outback).”

SEC #2 vs B10 #2 – fair on paper

SEC #3/4 vs B10 #3 – fair on paper half the time
SEC #3/4 vs B12 #2 – fair on paper half the time (#3 of 14 is equivalent to #2 of 10)

SEC #5 vs ACC #2 – playing up

“That’s honestly the toughest bowl lineup on paper, so I’ll give the SEC credit for usually handling it well.”

Your paper conveniently ignores which conferences they play (3 ACC, 1 AAC 1 CUSA much easier than 1 MAC with the rest B12, P12 and SEC) as well as where they play. The SEC goes as far west as Dallas and as far north as Nashville (FL x3, TN x2, LA x2, AL, GA, TX) while the B10 goes as far west as LA and as far south as FL (FL x3 all vs SEC, TX x2 vs B12, CA vs P12, AZ vs B12, MI vs MAC).

My paper says that’s more difficult..

“It’s really the Pac-12 and ACC that have had weaker bowl tie-ins.”

Yes, they have. But this year the SEC was expected to cruise their bowls so I don’t consider that a hard slate (for them). I’ll worry about bowl records when every conference is predicted to be roughly 0.500 in their bowls.

Well, you’d expect to cruise if your teams are better than anyone else’s as well.

The SEC can’t play themselves in a bowl game. You have a point about their AAC and CUSA tie-ins, but it’s not their fault that the ACC is right in their territory, so they play a lot of bowl games against them, while the Pac is far away. It’s also not their fault that a ton of bowls are located in their territory.

How about this: You try to set up a realistic SEC bowl lineup where they can expect to be roughly .500 in their bowls. Then get back to me.

“Well, you’d expect to cruise if your teams are better than anyone else’s as well.”

Or if they’re just better than who they are playing.

“The SEC can’t play themselves in a bowl game.”

They already have once. Give them time, and they might do it more often. Have the game of the year that wasn’t played, pairing the highest teams (after the playoff) that didn’t meet during the season.

“You have a point about their AAC and CUSA tie-ins, but it’s not their fault that the ACC is right in their territory, so they play a lot of bowl games against them, while the Pac is far away. It’s also not their fault that a ton of bowls are located in their territory.”

I’m not blaming them for anything, just pointing it out. Geography favors certain conferences (they host the bowls) and certain pairings of conferences (they neighbor each other). But the ACC and P12 do play in TX, so it can be done.

“How about this: You try to set up a realistic SEC bowl lineup where they can expect to be roughly .500 in their bowls. Then get back to me.”

Again, I’m not blaming them. I’m just pointing out that bowl schedules are apples and oranges between conferences, so comparing bowl records is largely pointless.

The SEC could have a tougher slate if they didn’t try to maximize the money or convenience for their fans, but that would be illogical of Slive and I’m saying they should. If the B10 can play in the Holiday and KFH bowls, so could the SEC in theory. They could play the B10 in NY or DC or Detroit instead of FL.

Brian – you grossly overestimate the difficulty of the bowl locations and the home field advantages that the SEC enjoys. While Orlando (B1G #2 v. SEC #2) and Tampa (B1G #3 v. SEC #3 or #4) may be big UF towns, that doesn’t necessarily translate into them being big SEC towns. For the most part, the locals that attend bowl games are looking for a good game and don’t usually cheer very much one way or the other. Also, think of all the Midwestern snowbirds/retirees in the region, and the fact that the B1G fanbases travel so well (to get out of the snow back home). I’ve attended two Cap One Bowls and didn’t feel like LSU had any sort of a home field advantage. While I didn’t attend the Outback Bowl last week, my friends that went said that Iowa fans outnumbered LSU fans 3 to 1. Furthermore, only Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Auburn are located within 500 miles of any of the Florida bowls.

With the Peach Bowl (ACC #2 v. SEC #5), the locals may be more vocal for the SEC, but of the Peach Bowls that I attended, my Tigers played GA Tech. The 15-20,000 Tigers fans made more noise than the rest of the stadium.

With the Cotton Bowl (B-12 #2 v. SEC #3 or #4), the locals that attend support the B-12 teams. I have attended two Cotton Bowls and the opponents were Texas and Texas A&M. The crowds were not a factor in either LSU’s loss against Texas or its win against A&M.

The Nashville, Memphis, Birmingham and Shreveport bowls’ local crowds are going to favor the SEC, but I doubt those crowds of casual fans make or made much of a difference in any recent games. I have attended several Independence Bowls, and the only time I remember the crowd being a factor was when LSU played a Nick Saban-led Michigan State team. Even then, 20% of the stadium was pulling for Sparty.

One other thing to take into consideration is that 7 to 20,000 fans all sitting in generally the same spot in the stadium can make a lot of noise for their team. For SEC road games, visitors are only allotted about 7,000 tickets, which are usually some of the worst seats and spread throughout the stadium, in order to minimize their impact. That’s not the case with bowls.

Both teams have to travel and stay in a hotel for a week. Even when LSU plays in the Sugar Bowl, they are required to stay in New Orleans for the week, despite Baton Rouge being located 80 miles away to the Northwest. The Sugar Bowl is probably the biggest home field advantage for the SEC if the visitor is playing LSU, Auburn or Alabama, but each team receives 17,500 tickets and many more are available on the secondary market. Even when LSU played your Buckeyes, you still had about 30-35% Ohio State fans in the building. I was there and the Buckeye faithful were very loud in the first quarter. After the first quarter ended, not so much.

Furthermore, on paper the B1G doesn’t “play up” in any of their bowl games (except for Dallas and Pizza versus non-AQ teams), according to this season’s bowl tie-ins.

I know the B1G didn’t have enough teams to qualify for all its bowls (Dallas and Pizza), and the SEC didn’t send a team to the Shreveport bowl. But your argument about the SEC playing weaker teams in secondary bowls doesn’t hold water either. If the B1G had another bowl-eligible team, its #7 team would have played CUSA #4 (North Texas). The SEC’s #10 team played the CUSA Champion. Furthermore, while Vandy did play Houston in the Birmingham bowl, the AAC is an AQ conference this season.

“Brian – you grossly overestimate the difficulty of the bowl locations and the home field advantages that the SEC enjoys.”

I don’t think I do, but I’m also considering it in a bigger picture way than you seem to be. I’m not just talking about crowd noise on game day. I’m considering the weather the team practices in before heading to the bowl, because it takes more than a few days to adjust. I’m considering the playing surfaces teams have versus the bowls (more northern school have artificial turf because grass doesn’t do as well). I’m considering the cultural differences between home and the bowl site (even things like food differences affect people). I’m considering the impact of large changes in latitude on sun intensity and length of day. I’m considering the number of fans you run into on the street that maybe aren’t going to the game. I think you get the idea.

And yet the B10 almost exclusively plays SEC East teams in FL (lately UF, UGA and SC), and SEC fans are renowned for their conference spirit.

“For the most part, the locals that attend bowl games are looking for a good game and don’t usually cheer very much one way or the other.”

The locals are clearly pro-SEC. They aren’t as vocal as the team’s fans, but they aren’t cheering for the B10.

“Also, think of all the Midwestern snowbirds/retirees in the region, and the fact that the B1G fanbases travel so well (to get out of the snow back home).”

Yes, we do a good job of trying to minimize the disadvantage. Of course, that happens at great expense to our fans versus the home conference’s fans, but that’s not a W/L issue.

“I’ve attended two Cap One Bowls and didn’t feel like LSU had any sort of a home field advantage.”

Nobody is claiming it feels like Death Valley West at a bowl. Just because it doesn’t feel remotely like that doesn’t mean LSU is lacking an advantage. It just isn’t as large as you’re used to seeing.

“Furthermore, only Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Auburn are located within 500 miles of any of the Florida bowls.”

BCS era teams from the SEC in those games versus the B10:

Tangerine/Cap 1:
UF/UGA/SC/AU – 10
Other – AR x 2, LSU x2, UT, AL

Hall of Fame/Outback:
UF/UGA/SC/AU – 12
Other – UT x 2, UK, LSU

Gator:
UF/UGA/SC/AU – 2
Other – MSU x2

That’s 24 of 36 slots filled by those 4 nearby teams.

“Both teams have to travel and stay in a hotel for a week. Even when LSU plays in the Sugar Bowl, they are required to stay in New Orleans for the week, despite Baton Rouge being located 80 miles away to the Northwest.”

And you think LSU feels that the same way as a team from 1000 miles away?

“Furthermore, on paper the B1G doesn’t “play up” in any of their bowl games (except for Dallas and Pizza versus non-AQ teams), according to this season’s bowl tie-ins.”

I didn’t say they did.

Big Ten Conference

“But your argument about the SEC playing weaker teams in secondary bowls doesn’t hold water either.”

That wasn’t my argument. I said the SEC plays more teams from weaker leagues (non-AQ/AAC/ACC).

Also, let’s look at the Sugar Bowl/NCG in New Orleans since 1998:
LSU – 4-1 (with the loss to AL)
Rest of SEC – 4-6
B10 – 2-2 with both losses to LSU

Those 4 bowls (essentially all of the neutral site meetings between the conferences) combine to make the B10 18-22 (0.450) versus the SEC since 1998, but 9-5 (0.643) against non-local teams and 9-17 against the locals (0.346).

Brian, Richard and anyone else (I have not read this entire thread) — Never in a million years would I have imagined that I would be posting on this board in defense of the SEC, but as long as we are hypothesizing:
2011
I take Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, South Carolina and Georgia — you take any five Big Ten teams, you pick the match-ups — SEC wins this series no matter how many times you simulate the results (at least 10)
2012
I take Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M, South Carolina and LSU — you take your five (Michigan, Northwestern, PSU, OSU and Nebraska?) — I take same bet.
2013
Auburn, Alabama, South Carolina, Missouri and LSU — you take your five (MSU, OSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa?) — I take same bet.

It does not matter if they play indoors, outdoors, at the Rose Bowl, Yankee Stadium or Jerry’s World. In fact, if you had to play seeds (#1 vs. #1), in 2011 I would win if the Big 10 had home field advantage for every game — and maybe in 2012. The Big 10 is down. The conference might improve. But you cannot deny the recent history.

It’s ultimately about the end result: win the games. We can debate match ups all day long, I have plenty of issues with the tradition of bowl scheduling, but again “win the games”. The BIG has been overall subpar, historical fact prevails and underscores my easy argument. I firmly believe that cultural changes involving many actors could improve the product, but this is ultimately an ineffective space for such debate.

You continue to amaze me Brian with your textual analysis – it’s actually comforting to know that there are crazier people than me on this planet : ).

PS The BIG has to be the only conference where most of its top programs have losing bowl records. PSU remains the underrated gem in this conference when it comes to bowl games, but their records book will remain tainted for good.

The B10 is the only conference that had restrictive bowl rules that greatly reduced the total number of bowls their teams got to play in and limited them to playing the P8/P10 champ in CA (back when travel was harder, too).

The apparent loss of Golden from Miami and Strong from Louisville will deliver a considerable setback to the perception of ACC football. No, it hasn’t yet reached the level of Florida State and the 13 dwarfs, but it remains to be seen if their successors would be able to maintain nationally prominent programs.

The apparent loss of Golden from Miami and Strong from Louisville will deliver a considerable setback to the perception of ACC football. No, it hasn’t yet reached the level of Florida State and the 13 dwarfs, but it remains to be seen if their successors would be able to maintain nationally prominent programs.

It strikes me as two very different situations. Until the early 2000s, they were football elite, no matter how you define that term. They did it long enough (again, under multiple coaches) to suggest it wasn’t a fluke. The next Miami coach’s job is to restore what was undoubtedly a top-tier program for many years. Al Golden certainly seemed to have them on that path.

Louisville, on the other hand, has been a slightly above-average mid-major for most of its existence. Historically, they have a good year or two, then go back to playing .500 ball against a mediocre schedule. When they find a decent coach, he leaves for greener pastures. Until Charlie Strong did it, Louisville had never had consecutive double-digit win seasons, nor won consecutive bowls. So the open question is whether, without Charlie Strong, they go back to being the old Louisville.

However, I don’t see the rationale for Bob Stoops leaving for Cleveland.
He loves OH that much? At OU, he’s pretty much set for another decade (I don’t see him pulling a Mack Brown; he’s still cranking out double-digit win seasons virtually every year), which would take him in to his ’60’s. At Cleveland, it would be tough to last 4 years.

BTW, my feeling is that Richt is on shakier footing than Pelini. Doesn’t look that way from GA?

Over the past 6 years, Richt has fewer wins than Pelini (both are 3-3 in bowl games) despite having massively better local recruiting grounds than Pelini. You can’t say that it’s due to the much tougher ESS-EEE-SEE either as UGa has racked up more OOC losses over that time frame as well.

No. Last year brought him back from the brink. This year the injuries were so critical, no one complains much about 8-5. And his team put out full effort every game but the bowl game (sometimes a stupid effort, but always a great effort). They were in every game. And all but Missouri into the final minute. 4 of the losses could easily have gone the other way with a single key play. Of course, a couple of the wins could have also.

I decided to take a look at the link between recruiting and winning a national title since it seems obvious that you’re simply not going to contend for a national title with recruiting classes out of the top 20. Granted, even with stellar recruiting, you may not contend because of poor coaching or development (ahem, Mack & Lane), but you won’t get in to the race without the horses.

So I decided to give 2 points to top 5 classes and 1 point to classes 6-10 (going by Rivals). I know that there is a difference between a top 20 class and one lower down, but it does look like you’re not going to be able to win a national title just with a string of top 20 classes without breaking in to the top 10 (and going past the top 10 would take more work). I also decided to double-weigh the senior and junior classes, as they’d have more impact than the sophomores and freshmen.

So who will be the national champion in 2014? Assuming that 2014 class rankings stay as they are (though even if they don’t it wouldn’t be a big deal for most teams as the senior and junior classes are weighted more), here are the contenders by this metric:
Bama: 12
FSU: 9
OSU & Texas: 8
UF: 7
Auburn & USC: 6
ND: 5
LSU, UGa, Michigan, & Stanford: 4

BTW, if you go by this metric, you can see that the SEC has started producing more true national title contenders relative to the rest of college football in recent years. From 2005-2008, there were always more true (has a 4 or above in recruiting by this metric) non-SEC national title contenders than SEC national title contenders. From 2009-2013, however, other than in 2011, there were as many or more true national title contenders within just the SEC than in all other conferences combined.

This is really due to only a few trends. While Bama has roared from being a non-contender back in 2005 to being the most talent contender in recent years, both Miami and OU have gone from recruiting the talent required to win national titles in 2005 to not doing so in recent years.
USC, FSU, UF, LSU, and UGa have recruited enough talent to be national title contenders the whole period though UGa has dropped a bit now compared to the beginning. Texas as well except for 2006. OSU has generally had the recruiting (though were weaker earlier in the period, when they, ironically, made it to the title game and promptly got smashed). Michigan and ND have always been close to the cut line through the whole period. Tennessee was recruiting the talent early in the time period to be a true contender but isn’t now, but Auburn wasn’t recruiting the the talent required earlier but is now. That makes up virtually the entire list of schools that had gotten a 4 at some point during this time period. UNL did in 2007 & 2008 while Stanford will in 2014. PSU is the only king that never recruited well enough to win the national title any year during the period.

In 2014, SEC schools will make up a slight minority of true national title contenders (5 vs. 7).

@frug – Quite the irony that the two top superstation teams of the ’80s and ’90s (the Braves and Cubs) that leveraged huge nationwide cable exposure are currently saddled with far-below-market TV contracts.

Yes, that’s correct – the Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks all have 20% shares in CSN Chicago. The thing is that it has been a good-to-great deal for the White Sox, Bulls and Blackhawks, but the Cubs are leaving a lot of money on the table in that setup. They could easily be the sole team on a station like the Dodgers and get a truly monster deal. Plus, CSN Chicago’s carriage rate is actually fairly low considering the market size and that it’s a legitimate 24/7/365 RSN with relevant programming everyday. My guess is that Comcast, which owns the last 20% of the network, has favorable carriage terms and they’re the top cable provider in the Chicago market. All of those things out together mean that the Cubs are getting paid a lot less than they ought to be (and their ownership has said as much). In terms of actual market value, they should be right next to the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers in terms of TV money, but they’re more towards the middle of the pack in MLB (considering the deals that teams like the Mets, Angels, Rangers, Phillies and Giants now have).

Still, that’s not nearly as bad a situation as the one that the Braves are in. The Cubs bring in far more TV money than any of their competitors in the NL Central and have TV deals that are expiring soon.

The Braves have a TV deal that is towards the lower end of the spectrum in MLB, gives them no equity stake, and is one that they’re locked in to until 2031.

And what about the Nationals? They are in a top 10 market — both in size and affluence — but they currently are boxed in because of the MASN deal with Cuban Pete (Angelos). If they could negotiate their own TV deal, either with CSN Washington or a completely new channel (Fox reportedly is interested), they would be in excellent shape.

The Nats are currently in arbitration and are requesting $100-$120 a year. While they may not get they much right now, they are allowed to renegotiate their TV deal every five years anyways, so at most they just have to wait a few years to get a big payday.

Braves aren’t desperate. They just want it all. Right now they are in the slums. Parking is a pain. Access is a pain. They don’t control all of their parking and have had times when they couldn’t get their parking open. And their customers are almost all north of Turner Field. The geographic center north/south is right where they are moving. If they moved straight north to GA-400 and I-285, they would be exactly in the center.

So they get
Development rights around the stadium
Total control of the parking, so they don’t have to negotiate when they need parking a little early
A stadium in an area their customers aren’t afraid to be in at night
A stadium closer to their customers
More suites
Fewer seats-Turner Field with 50k gives them more supply than they need most of the time-meaning lower ticket prices.

And they found a community willing to give them what they wanted. While Atlanta gave the Falcons all they wanted while bribing the neighborhoods and churches not to put up a fuss.

Well it was the Democrats in Atlanta who gave up money to the Falcons to replace a perfectly good 22 year old stadium and the Republicans in Cobb County who gave up money to the Braves to replace a perfectly good 17 year old stadium.

Plus, no mass transit access. At least MARTA ran shuttles to the Ted. MARTA isn’t allowed into Cobb County, so only CCT (a bus system only, and a small one) can get to the new park and the only access from Atlanta is on CCT express.buses from north of downtown.

In addition, it’s being built at an intersection of 2 major interstates (6+ lanes each way for both) that are already parking lots during rush hour. Then they have to exit onto an incredibly busy surface street that is also a parking lot in rush hour. Now that road will have an extra 25,000 cars on it. Someone in downtown Atlanta would probably need to allow at least an hour to drive the 15 miles to a 7pm weeknight game.

Turner field is at the intersection of 2.5 interstate (6+ lanes each way for both) and an exit onto a couple of tiny surface streets into an area hemmed in by the freeways.

Atlanta messed up by not putting Turner Field actually in downtown with direct MARTA access like Phipps Arena and the football stadium(s). Turner is one of worst spots you could pick. Maybe central DeKalb County (to the east with no freeways or MARTA) or the middle of Buckhead (north of downtown with 1 freeway off to the edge) would be worse, but not many places.

“Turner field is at the intersection of 2.5 interstate (6+ lanes each way for both) and an exit onto a couple of tiny surface streets into an area hemmed in by the freeways.”

Yes.

“Atlanta messed up by not putting Turner Field actually in downtown with direct MARTA access like Phipps Arena and the football stadium(s). Turner is one of worst spots you could pick.”

It’s a terrible place except that’s where they had room. They should have created a MARTA station, at least, though. The GA Dome is only about a mile away, though, so it’s not like it or Phillips are so much easier to access.

“Maybe central DeKalb County (to the east with no freeways or MARTA) or the middle of Buckhead (north of downtown with 1 freeway off to the edge) would be worse, but not many places.”

Up GA 400 when it was a toll road when have been cute. How about on top of Lenox or Phipps?

There has been much speculation concerning my future at the University of Miami. While I am flattered that our progress at The U during an extremely difficult period of time is recognized, I am also appreciative of just what we have here at UM and I am not a candidate for another position.

Personally, I think this is a good thing for PSU. Golden is a good coach, but I really think PSU would be better served by bringing in an outsider instead of an alum who grew up in Central Pennsylvania.